PDA

View Full Version : when players simply wont take a hint



Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-21, 05:12 PM
Whenever players need that extra boost, its time to subtly drop a hint or clue, most of the time they don't get it and we all sigh internally.

What are some hints you gave to players that were never picked up?

Most recently was this, the paladin rolled a 20 on a STR check to escape a grapple from a water weird, "Hey, nice crit, you can toss him if you want."

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-21, 05:49 PM
A player attempted to use Dimension Door to get from Point A to Point B.

I told him, "The spell doesn't work, which strikes your character as peculiar, because he didn't do anything wrong. It should have worked."

Instead of taking the hint that there was something interfering with the spell, the player took up the Player's Handbook, read the description of Dimension Door and then gave me a Disapproving Look.

A Spellcraft check would have revealed that there was some sort of arcane interference with the function of Dimension Door. Which would draw any experienced wizard to conclude that a Dimensional Lock might be in effect. (It was a Dimensional Lock hidden by a Screen spell.)

But the player lept to the conclusion that I was just using Rule Zero to jerk him around and he lost interest.

I was giving him clues about the environment based on what his character was able to perceive. Being something of a Rules Lawyer, he had trouble relating to that. Since I didn't divulge to the player what the character didn't know, the player had no frame of reference to call my ruling into question.

After the adventure was concluded, I told him all the information and he gave me another Disapproving Look.

I remain unrepentant to this day about how I adjudicated that encounter.

VincentTakeda
2015-06-21, 06:15 PM
This kind of thing happens to me all the time.

One specific time a curse was delivered to one of my players in the form of a handshake (actually arm wrestling that the player chose to participate in). This player's character was of a race that for the most part avoided and distrusted magic and knew little of it. If I let him make his saving throw at the moment the curse was delivered, theres good odds he'd have murdered the guy on the spot without any in character evidence that something untoward had happened in that moment. If I'd have let him make the saving throw generally some time around the time he was cursed and told him it was a save against a curse he'd probably have destroyed the entire building and everyone in it in response to being slighted. Instead I waited to let him make the saving throw until he performed an action that was in opposition to the effects of the curse, which was a full day and several hundred miles later. I told him the manner in which his actions were being interfered with but still did not tell him it was a curse. He nearly tableflipped and ragequit.

Keltest
2015-06-21, 06:37 PM
This kind of thing happens to me all the time.

One specific time a curse was delivered to one of my players in the form of a handshake (actually arm wrestling that the player chose to participate in). This player's character was of a race that for the most part avoided and distrusted magic and knew little of it. If I let him make his saving throw at the moment the curse was delivered, theres good odds he'd have murdered the guy on the spot without any in character evidence that something untoward had happened in that moment. If I'd have let him make the saving throw generally some time around the time he was cursed and told him it was a save against a curse he'd probably have destroyed the entire building and everyone in it in response to being slighted. Instead I waited to let him make the saving throw until he performed an action that was in opposition to the effects of the curse, which was a full day and several hundred miles later. I told him the manner in which his actions were being interfered with but still did not tell him it was a curse. He nearly tableflipped and ragequit.

That sounds a lot less like "Player misses a hint" and more like "GM doesn't trust player to separate OOC knowledge from IC knowledge." As far as I am aware, a character doesn't know they made a saving throw if there are no visible effects from having the spell cast on you.

The appropriate response when a player tries to metagame to that extreme is generally to ask them to explain their reasoning for the action.

Grooke
2015-06-21, 07:07 PM
Also, I find "roll a save, take a penalty" to be a very subtle hint at "you got cursed while arm wrestling a few hundred miles back".

Maglubiyet
2015-06-21, 07:15 PM
A Spellcraft check would have revealed that there was some sort of arcane interference with the function of Dimension Door. Which would draw any experienced wizard to conclude that a Dimensional Lock might be in effect. (It was a Dimensional Lock hidden by a Screen spell.)


In this case I probably would've had him roll the Spellcraft. The character might've been an "experienced wizard", but not necessarily the player.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-21, 08:11 PM
In this case I probably would've had him roll the Spellcraft. The character might've been an "experienced wizard", but not necessarily the player.

If it were a Spot check, that would be one thing. I consider a Spellcraft check to fall clearly within the discretion of the player.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-21, 08:36 PM
If it were a Spot check, that would be one thing. I consider a Spellcraft check to fall clearly within the discretion of the player.

Yeah, well you don't know what you don't know -- the skills are on the character sheet, not in the player's head. I'm pretty lenient with throwing out info that I figure the CHARACTERS would know.

Plus, ya know, it can be fun. That's the truest measure of value for any given rule, imo. Your player's disapproving looks suggest that he was having less than.

Grooke
2015-06-21, 09:23 PM
It really boils down to knowing the players. Perhaps a simple "there is a legitimate reason why" would have cleared the air and got him looking, without giving away the source.

Mastikator
2015-06-21, 09:30 PM
I never hint. I tell blatantly. I've never had this problem and I've never had anyone tell me they think I am too blatant.

Don't be a mysterious DM, it's not helpful and I doubt your players appreciate it, it doesn't add to the immersion. Telling, blatantly and colorfully does.

Rainbownaga
2015-06-21, 10:07 PM
If it were a Spot check, that would be one thing. I consider a Spellcraft check to fall clearly within the discretion of the player.

If the player is reading through the spell section of the PHB to figure it out. He's effectively pantomimed a spellcraft check anyway.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-21, 10:28 PM
It really boils down to knowing the players. Perhaps a simple "there is a legitimate reason why" would have cleared the air and got him looking, without giving away the source.

Have you ever dealt with a Rules Lawyer?

Speaking as a reformed Rules Lawyer myself, I assure you that they tend not to go for "there's a legitimate reason why".

They need to know what the reason is, so that they can decide for themselves if the reason is legitimate.


If the player is reading through the spell section of the PHB to figure it out. He's effectively pantomimed a spellcraft check anyway.

Another DM could make such a ruling. I am not one of those DMs.

The player was making a classic Rules Lawyer mistake. He was so busy playing the rules, that he forgot to play the game.

At some point, if a game session is to proceed, the players have to take a break from winning an argument and get to the business of solving a problem. Even the Rules Lawyers.

Elbeyon
2015-06-21, 11:26 PM
Yeah, well you don't know what you don't know -- the skills are on the character sheet, not in the player's head. I'm pretty lenient with throwing out info that I figure the CHARACTERS would know.

Plus, ya know, it can be fun. That's the truest measure of value for any given rule, imo. Your player's disapproving looks suggest that he was having less than.Maglubiyet is right. You should have asked for a spellcraft roll. Hiding what rolls a player needs to make when he is indicating he wants to know what is going on is a horrible idea. Obviously, hiding things hasn't helped heal the trust issues in the group, but if you just asked him to roll a spellcraft to figure things out then things probably would have resolved in a more satisfactory way.


I never hint. I tell blatantly. I've never had this problem and I've never had anyone tell me they think I am too blatant.

Don't be a mysterious DM, it's not helpful and I doubt your players appreciate it, it doesn't add to the immersion. Telling, blatantly and colorfully does.Awesome. :smallbiggrin: Proper communication can go a long way towards improving so many things including social games.

Yukitsu
2015-06-21, 11:32 PM
I never hint. I tell blatantly. I've never had this problem and I've never had anyone tell me they think I am too blatant.

Don't be a mysterious DM, it's not helpful and I doubt your players appreciate it, it doesn't add to the immersion. Telling, blatantly and colorfully does.

I really like this. I've told my DM outright I refuse to solve any riddles, I'm never going to listen to ambiguous seer crap and if you ever tell me I need to actively use a skill that detects things, I'm going to bother him that I'm using it every round of the game for the rest of his life just in case he's not telling me I need to use it.

VincentTakeda
2015-06-21, 11:46 PM
Yep. The resolution in this case was that I had to remind him to solve in character problems in character.
I assured him that whatever had happened to him was not 'breaking the rules of the system but that I was not going to reveal what that thing is or how it happened or when.
If he was interested in pursuing it there are plenty of methods within the system to both discover and eliminate the trouble, but that it's an in character dilemma to be solved with in character actions.
So to the earlier post drawing the distinction that the player was raging to get out of character knowledge to meta with, and in not getting that information possibly presuming that I'm breaking the rules to bust him down, that is entirely true.
He then made efforts to diagnose and cure his characters curse, but in the moment of the reveal, we was livid at not having being handed meta knowledge on a silver platter.
But by the same token, he was even given metaknowledge at the reveal... Something bad started happening as a result of him having to make and fail a saving throw. Game mechanics were at work. Thats not very subtle of a hint.
The fact that the hint was given, in this case, was passionately overridden by the fact that I didnt give him knowledge his character shouldnt have in the moment he most would have preferred knowing it.
The possibility that he'd have tried everything in his power to use that metaknowledge to evoke a disproportionate response is very real. Nothing in the rules tacitly states that characters know they are 'making saving throws'.
I in fact made it easier for him to not abuse metaknowledge by not giving it to him. His character wouldnt know, so he didnt know. He only had to roll when it became relevant and even having to roll was still nothing more than informing him that 'something unknown was amiss for unknown reasons'
I don't think I was being unfair. To give him the information is putting the game on easy mode and the one thing I knew about the guy is that he likes things to be grim and perilous.
It interrupted the game for a short time and in the end he rolled with it. Took some doing though.

goto124
2015-06-22, 12:02 AM
But the player lept to the conclusion that I was just using Rule Zero to jerk him around and he lost interest.

Looks like the main problem is Lack of Player-DM Trust.

Which, I suspect, is part of the reason players go Rules-lawyers mode.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-22, 12:13 AM
...
Hiding what rolls a player needs to make when he is indicating he wants to know what is going on is a horrible idea. Obviously, hiding things hasn't helped heal the trust issues in the group, but if you just asked him to roll a spellcraft to figure things out then things probably would have resolved in a more satisfactory way.
...

For the record, once I told this player that the spell didn't work, he just stopped listening.

He didn't want to know what was going on. He didn't care what was going on. He was so locked into the perceived injustice that attached to the DM saying "your spell isn't working" that he stopped responding to what I was saying.

The only person with trust issues in this group was this player. He'd had some really bad DMs in the past, and he was just not getting past it.

One time, between game sessions, I was chatting him up about the game. His trust issues came up and he went on about previous games and egregious DM rulings, and I said something like, "Look you had a couple of crap DMs. I get it. But you have to stop treating it like you did two tours of duty in Vietnam. This thing where you assume I'm trying to screw you over every time I sit behind a DM screen is getting old. Enough already."

Eventually, he came to understand that I wasn't an inherently adversarial DM, but he always struggled with trust issues.

goto124
2015-06-22, 12:54 AM
The only person with trust issues in this group was this player. He'd had some really bad DMs in the past, and he was just not getting past it.

Eventually, he came to understand that I wasn't an inherently adversarial DM, but he always struggled with trust issues.

Ouch. I'm glad you do understand his issues, and controlled your own anger as well as helped him overcome his problems.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-22, 01:51 AM
I never hint. I tell blatantly. I've never had this problem and I've never had anyone tell me they think I am too blatant.

Don't be a mysterious DM, it's not helpful and I doubt your players appreciate it, it doesn't add to the immersion. Telling, blatantly and colorfully does.


How do I blatantly describe a magically hidden Dimensional Lock?

Be specific.

Yukitsu
2015-06-22, 01:55 AM
How do I blatantly describe a magically hidden Dimensional Lock?

Be specific.

"Do you have knowledge arcana and/or an int of at least 10? You are aware that dimension lock is a spell which exists."

Kane0
2015-06-22, 02:02 AM
"There is a dimensional lock effect in place hidden by another spell, your dude could figure it out with a good arcana roll"
?

Mastikator
2015-06-22, 02:12 AM
How do I blatantly describe a magically hidden Dimensional Lock?

Be specific.

"As you cast the spell and blink into the astral plane a wall of magical energy crashes into you and bounces you back."

Even though the spell doesn't describe the sensation of Dimension Door, there is a sensation. A wizard that teleports through dimensions will see said dimensions flash before him as he teleports as far as I am concerned. The wizard is privy to this sensation and so is the player.
Casting Dimension Door isn't like calling for a cab and then being transported, the wizard is the vessel that does the transporting, and if there is something physically stopping him he should at the very least get to know what it looked and felt like.

If there's something anchoring you and you try to move, you feel the anchor.

I'd even go so far as to tell him to do a Spellcraft check, just because the player can't figure it out doesn't mean the PC wouldn't know. A Spellcraft check to find out what spell is occurring is basically a knowledge check, the player shouldn't have to guess which knowledge check he should roll for. Because if he rolls and succeeds then he actually knew in advance and shouldn't get to choose to roll.

Telok
2015-06-22, 03:30 AM
Sage: The thing you need is in the hands of a lich. His name was <whatever>, he was the head of the Imperial Necromancers Guild about 150 years ago. His lair is here on this map.
PCs: We head to the dungeon.
GM You travel three days to Formello, the city with the biggest library in the land.
PCs: We keep going.
GM: You travel two weeks to the Tower of the Magi, the school for arcane magic users in the kingdom.
PCs: We keep going.
GM: You travel ten days to Almaria where the retired-adventuring-wizard-sage-who-makes-maps lives.
PCs: We keep going.
GM: You travel five days to the Royal Castle where Rone, archmage of the kingdom, advises the king.
PCs: The king can't do anything for us. We keep going.
GM: You travel two days to Fort Emerald, there are a dozen mages here and they trade Fireballs with the enemy mages in the trenches every day. There is a very skilled bard here helping to keep morale up.
PCs: We keep going.
GM: You get to the mouth of the cave. There are no living plants or animals within three miles of here.
PCs: We go in.

The lich was a specalist transmuter or enchanter or something, not a necromancer, that was just a hobby. Golem bodyguards, succubus wife, custom spells to make templated undead, famously used body doubles to thwart assassins, in-setting the creator of the first living spells. There were a few specters and vampires hanging around too, fifty or so ghouls and ghasts, mostly as decoration.

No stops at the libraries, no divinations, no talking to sages, no checking history books, no buying undead-bane arrows or such, no way to fight incorporeal foes. It was a slaughter. There was one character from the original party left at the end of it. Some people had gone through three characters. There was a small consecrated graveyard outside the entrance filled with post-adventurers. By the end they were way over equipped just from the stuff off of their own dead adventurers.

They never did kill that vampire giant octopus in the black lake or recover all the loot.

goto124
2015-06-22, 03:42 AM
Clash of playstyles. Players expected a simple hack-and-slash, GM expected players to prep themselves even before going into the dungeon the adventure supposedly takes place in.

Those players are clearly unused to the smart & cautious style. What did you, the GM, tell them about the game beforehand?

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-22, 04:29 AM
"Do you have knowledge arcana and/or an int of at least 10? You are aware that dimension lock is a spell which exists."


"There is a dimensional lock effect in place hidden by another spell, your dude could figure it out with a good arcana roll"
?


"

I'd even go so far as to tell him to do a Spellcraft check, just because the player can't figure it out doesn't mean the PC wouldn't know. A Spellcraft check to find out what spell is occurring is basically a knowledge check, the player shouldn't have to guess which knowledge check he should roll for.
...

All of these points have merit.

But all of these points assume that the player is playing his character.

He stopped playing his character. He refused to take any actions, on principle.

He stonewalled me.

Because in 7th grade he suffered under a series of really really mean and immature Dungeon Masters.

And he was carrying that baggage to every game table since, until he sat down at mine.

It took a long time... literally years... to get him to drop any of that baggage.

And I never did get him to drop all of it.

He never did stop playing the rules.

But I did manage, over time, to get him to play the game.

And I didn't get him there by enabling his burn-victim mentality.

Or by internalizing what was clearly his baggage and his trust issues.

Or by keeping the game strictly inside of his personal comfort zone.

I ran a functional campaign.

The first one in which he'd ever played.

He adapted.

I was his Dungeon Master, folks, not his therapist.

Mastikator
2015-06-22, 05:04 AM
All of these points have merit.

But all of these points assume that the player is playing his character.
[snip]
I was his Dungeon Master, folks, not his therapist.

You're blaming the player for not getting your hint. It doesn't matter what kind of player you're dealing with here, do not drop hints just tell him. If he's a complete newb, just tell him, if he's a vet, just tell him, if he's a time traveling android from the future come to take over the human race, even then just tell him.

You hinted when you should've told him, that is your fault. All you're doing when you drop hints instead of just telling him everything is taking away from the immersion and leaving him with less to work with. You're stealing his floor and complaining that he can't stand.

The only time it's even remotely OK to drop hints is when you're playing a murder mystery, and even then it's just remotely OK, not preferable. I don't care if he has some bad experience or not, none of that matters. You're the DM, you tell the players what happens, you describe the world and you tell them all the information they need. Don't hint at the information, bombard them with it. Tell them the smell and taste of a dimensional lock if you have to.

The Evil DM
2015-06-22, 05:22 AM
- snip - You're the DM, you tell the players what happens, you describe the world and you tell them all the information they need.

I disagree with this statement in one way.

it should end with "tell them all the information they perceive." - something they need may only be perceivable if they use a particular effect like true seeing. Sometimes a player needs to infer something they need and maybe the dimensional lock is a suboptimal example.



Don't hint at the information, bombard them with it. Tell them the smell and taste of a dimensional lock if you have to.

If a dimensional lock has a smell and taste, by all means describe it because it is something they can perceive. Again - suboptimal example because it directly interacts with the player an maybe there is something there to perceive.

To that end I do believe there is both passive perception and active perception. Passive is always active and the DM should give all data points that result from passive perception. But if Shane has established that using Knowledge skills requires some active thought then its not passive perception.

In my world if the BBEG is running around polymorphed into a beggar checking out a city and the players have nothing to passively perceive the polymorph effect then I am not going to be giving any clues. At the same time if the players trigger up a True Seeing all of a sudden a whole lot more falls under passive perception.

Amphetryon
2015-06-22, 06:15 AM
Several of these "Players simply won't take a hint" examples read, to me, more like "Players simply won't correctly read the GM's mind." What seems an obvious hint with complete knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes is often less so when one's information is less complete.

The Glyphstone
2015-06-22, 06:19 AM
Agreed. I still can't figure out what the OP's example is 'hinting' at.

Red Fel
2015-06-22, 06:33 AM
Several of these "Players simply won't take a hint" examples read, to me, more like "Players simply won't correctly read the GM's mind." What seems an obvious hint with complete knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes is often less so when one's information is less complete.

Agreed.

Never, ever rely on players to "take a hint." They won't. That's not how most players work. Some marvelous, cunning, creative players, certainly, but the vast majority rely on what the DM explicitly describes. "You see an X." "You feel the wind in what should be a sealed room." "You hear murmuring behind the walls." "Give me a Spot check." "Roll Listen, if you would." And so on.

The reason is simple. The game universe exists primarily in the DM's mind; it is only through his statements that the players are able to interact with it. The less you tell your players, the fewer their options, simply because they don't know what's in your head.

I've seen threads like this, where DMs complain that the players don't seem to get the hint, when in reality it's quite often a case of the DM not giving the players enough information to go on. I've seen others, where DMs complain that the players seem to go off in weird directions, when in reality it's quite often a case of the PCs, lacking enough information, grasping at straws. The two boil down to the same point.

Talk to your players. Get to know their abilities and limits. Do they like decoding your brainwaves? Some players do, and that's fine. In my experience, however, most need something a little bit more direct. Advise them to roll a skill check. Suggest that they ponder what might have caused something to happen. Point out something they have on their character sheet which might be of use. (You don't have to tell them how to use it, but give them the start.) Remember the three clue rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) - for any conclusion you want the PCs to make, include at least three clues. Heck, if in doubt, give your players "common sense chips," which they can cash in for a common sense check - as in, a tip on what skill or ability might be particularly useful right about then.

The Evil DM
2015-06-22, 07:08 AM
Several of these "Players simply won't take a hint" examples read, to me, more like "Players simply won't correctly read the GM's mind." What seems an obvious hint with complete knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes is often less so when one's information is less complete.

I actually agree with this and have had trouble in the way past when I was a newbie GM. I do still hold to my comment about perception being the key here. I thought I would expand on some thoughts posted earlier.

I do have issues with the term Hint vs Information. Hint implies the GM is leading the players along. Information is detail and data about current setting/events/conditions.

In my mind there are three sets of information in an RPG that relate to the Player/DM interaction. (in terms of flow from DM to Player)

First there is the set of all information that can be perceived through passive means. It is all the stuff a player can see, hear, smell or otherwise detect without any special effort. This can also include subtle cues the DM should give out like a slight limp on a man. This is all the information that should be included in the running narrative and to this end I agree with Mastikator who said,


Don't hint at the information, bombard them with it. Tell them the smell and taste of a dimensional lock if you have to.

When I describe an object, event or place I describe it in terms of sight, smell, sounds and all those things that you can observe without requiring real effort. As players enter a chamber it is SOP to roll spot, and listen, any general perception for other senses and depending on the roll I may give out slightly finer detail. The difference may be - you see a blood streak on the wall - to you see a blood streak on the wall that appears thicker and heavier to the left.

Second, there is the set of all information that can be perceived as a direct result of an action. This is what I call active perception.

The sense of touch requires that a player actually touch something - or in the case of very hot or cold objects - come close to touching. I don't describe way a wall texture feels unless the players actually touch the wall. I don't necessarily describe the presence of a magical aura unless a player uses Detect Magic and concentrates on perceiving magic. Of course if the player has Arcane Sight up then perceiving magical auras becomes passive. This could also be information gleaned through a Divination.

Finally there is the set of all information that players will never have.

This is a small set of information, but ultimately the players don't necessarily need to know how I determine weather in a region, or how I determine the economic impact of drought on food prices in the region. I may discuss this stuff OOC outside of game play, but it has never been relevant in character and only serves to damage verisimilitude.

With those parameters in mind I never give players hints. I give them information that they can perceive. From there it is up to them to deduce anything else they need and of course sometimes they deduce an incorrect conclusion.

With that in mind I think Telok's example is best


Sage: The thing you need is in the hands of a lich. His name was <whatever>, he was the head of the Imperial Necromancers Guild about 150 years ago. His lair is here on this map.
PCs: We head to the dungeon.
GM You travel three days to Formello, the city with the biggest library in the land.
PCs: We keep going.
GM: You travel two weeks to the Tower of the Magi, the school for arcane magic users in the kingdom.
PCs: We keep going.
GM: You travel ten days to Almaria where the retired-adventuring-wizard-sage-who-makes-maps lives.
PCs: We keep going.
GM: You travel five days to the Royal Castle where Rone, archmage of the kingdom, advises the king.
PCs: The king can't do anything for us. We keep going.
GM: You travel two days to Fort Emerald, there are a dozen mages here and they trade Fireballs with the enemy mages in the trenches every day. There is a very skilled bard here helping to keep morale up.
PCs: We keep going.
GM: You get to the mouth of the cave. There are no living plants or animals within three miles of here.
PCs: We go in.

These are not hints. They are data points. At each stage of the journey the players have been given to opportunity to exercise active information gathering and stop to talk to an NPC for more detail.
I would suspect that Telok's game is a sandbox and if you walk into the lich's lair at level 5 cest' la vie.

The hint problem increases as the degree of plot and railroadiness increases. The more dependent a game is on player action the more this becomes an issue. To that end I stopped using storylines and replaced all plot with constant narrative and event triggers that result in changes to the setting based on outcomes throughout play. Players interact with events or they choose not to.

If the king is assassinated and the players don't want to get involved - fine - that is their choice. But the king being assassinated might increase encounters with nervous guards who want to question outsiders. So I describe to them rumors they hear about how guards are hassling every one looking for the assassin.

Seto
2015-06-22, 07:24 AM
Had a near disaster yesterday (party tried to take on an Aboleth without specific preparation).

The enlarged Paladin with a big flaming bastard sword was Dominated into attacking his teammates, the Psychic Warrior and the Bard were confused (hitting comrades and babbling), their Fighter ally was K.O... The only functional member was the cowardly Ranger who refused to face the Aboleth. But she still healed the Fighter, who was the only one to actually succeed at his Will saves. (The Wizard's player couldn't make it to the session).

I dropped a hint. "The Aboleth keeps looking at you from afar, safe in the oily black water, amused. Its eyes keep glowing blue. It does nothing else than maintain its power over you".

It didn't dawn on them that they should try to disturb his Concentration. Well, not right away. The hint didn't give it away, but they proceeded to have the idea on their own. Go figure :smallbiggrin:

(in the end, the Fighter hit the Aboleth in the eye with an arrow, and it rolled a 2 on its Concentration check to maintain the effect. It went better after that, although they couldn't kill it and it escaped, leaving them with the Dominated Paladin).

The Glyphstone
2015-06-22, 07:47 AM
Sounds like they did get the hint (unless the fighter just shot an arrow in general and you specifically decide to let it hit the eye). It just didn't sink in immediately.

Segev
2015-06-22, 09:28 AM
One thing I've used and seen work well, both as player and DM, is the generic Int or Wis check. If you think something is painfully obvious, but are not positive that all characters would think of it, have the party roll one of those two checks. Set a DC; anybody who exceeds it - or, in the event nobody meets it, the highest roller - has a flash of insight. Tell them flat-out what you're trying to hint at, and credit their character for it.


"You recall that liches are tricky, dangerous beings, but you know you've heard rumors about this one's tactics. You can't remember specifics, but there's something odd about them. With a little research, you could probably be better prepared when you face him."

"You may not recall, because it's been a couple of real-time months, but your character does: the bard telling you about the lich mentioned that he liked turning people into other things; that doesn't sound like necromancy to you. This may call for research and information-gathering."




"Yes, dimension door works exactly as you read. Would you care to make a Spellcraft check to see if you can identify why it didn't, this time?"

Maglubiyet
2015-06-22, 09:30 AM
Second, there is the set of all information that can be perceived as a direct result of an action. This is what I call active perception.


The way I look at it, skills are integral to the way a person views and interprets the world. Many times they are automatic and should not always require direct action to access them.

An ornithologist driving down the highway doesn't need to make a conscious effort to notice that the birds pecking along the side of the road are a common species on their annual migration route far to the south. It's just the way his mind works, taking note and cataloging these things unconsciously. If something stands out, he may need to search his memory for the relevant details to figure out what's out of place. Passive vs active skill checks.

In game terms they are a free way for the GM to showcase the lovingly-created world the PC's inhabit. A rogue would notice that the locks on the door in the corner are of much higher quality than the rest of the house, a mage could tell that the knick-knacks scattered on a bedside table are actually spell components, a fighter would notice that the supposed "serving boy" is actually carrying himself with the confidence of a trained combatant.

Requiring the players to explicitly state that they are using all their skills all the time closes down an avenue for exposition for the GM's world.

Mystral
2015-06-22, 09:49 AM
Currently in just that situation with my group. They are standing in front of a statue, completely flabbergasted. It has a codeword written on a key in one of the statue hands that you need to speak to disable the trap on it. I gave them the hint that the key seems out of place and could be important. I think they are about to pry away the key and go search the dungeon for a keyhole.

Segev
2015-06-22, 09:53 AM
Currently in just that situation with my group. They are standing in front of a statue, completely flabbergasted. It has a codeword written on a key in one of the statue hands that you need to speak to disable the trap on it. I gave them the hint that the key seems out of place and could be important. I think they are about to pry away the key and go search the dungeon for a keyhole.

"As you investigate the key, you notice writing on it."

Mystral
2015-06-22, 10:05 AM
I have mentioned the writing 3 times, even in the initial description. And the players can go back and reread it any time they like (it's a forum rpg).

goto124
2015-06-22, 10:09 AM
Have small hole in a very awkward position on the statue.

Really emphasise the keyword, like this

Segev
2015-06-22, 10:09 AM
If the code word's the only way through, then you may have to just resort to an Int check, as I described above. The successful ones (or the highest roll) get a suggestion to try sounding out the word.

Mystral
2015-06-22, 10:11 AM
Honestly, I don't want to spoonfeed suggestions to my players. If they can't solve the riddle, I'll happily solve it for them, but then I'll dock their XP.

goto124
2015-06-22, 10:11 AM
Or... provide alternate methods. 'Insert the key' should work and it's pretty logical.

Fixed solutions are big problems in any tabletop game.

Mystral
2015-06-22, 10:16 AM
I don't think it would make sense that the entrance to the big treasure chamber has more than one way of opening it. Even the fact that the password is written on the door, so to speak, is pretty questionable.

Segev
2015-06-22, 10:37 AM
I don't think it would make sense that the entrance to the big treasure chamber has more than one way of opening it. Even the fact that the password is written on the door, so to speak, is pretty questionable.

The issue is that there seems to be only one way to solve the puzzle, and only one way to find the solution.

At a minimum, in such a situation, you should have something like a prop or visual aid. Hand them a drawing of the key with the writing plainly visible. Their characters are right there, looking at it, touching it. Your players, on the other hand, are reading forum posts which can easily get lost in walls of text.

Personally, if I didn't know (because I'd missed it in the description) about the word, I'd be looking at safely detonating the trap and forcing open the door.

NichG
2015-06-22, 11:05 AM
As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with - even actively in favor of - GMs dropping hints, messing with my character's perceptions, doing mind-screws, etc. Figuring that stuff out is very enjoyable for me.

The big thing is, though, when you do that you do have to be okay with the player not actually figuring it out. In most cases its best if the puzzle is off to the side a bit - a nice benefit if you figure it out or a penalty if you mess it up. Even if the game hinges on it that can be okay, but you should use it with the same caution that you'd use a high CR encounter.

Amphetryon
2015-06-22, 11:54 AM
Honestly, I don't want to spoonfeed suggestions to my players. If they can't solve the riddle, I'll happily solve it for them, but then I'll dock their XP.

As indicated upthread, this will come across to many as 'docking their XP for failing to read your mind.' At the least, it's 'docking their XP for failing to find the same solution I wanted them to find, when more than one seemed reasonable.'

Keltest
2015-06-22, 12:04 PM
As indicated upthread, this will come across to many as 'docking their XP for failing to read your mind.' At the least, it's 'docking their XP for failing to find the same solution I wanted them to find, when more than one seemed reasonable.'

I don't know about you, but I generally don't announce to my group every time they pass up an opportunity for extra XP.

Flickerdart
2015-06-22, 12:14 PM
Fixed solutions are for computer games. When you dump a bunch of PCs into a scenario, they're always going to find some weird solution you haven't even thought of, like polymorphing the door into a ghost so they can walk through it. I find it's best to just roll with it and encourage their creativity.

Silus
2015-06-22, 12:47 PM
Or... provide alternate methods. 'Insert the key' should work and it's pretty logical.

Fixed solutions are big problems in any tabletop game.

The tried and true example is thus:

DM: The door is locked and barred and resist all attempts to open it, magical or otherwise.
PC: ...What's the wall made of?

Yuki Akuma
2015-06-22, 12:52 PM
I don't think it would make sense that the entrance to the big treasure chamber has more than one way of opening it.

It shouldn't.

However, the bright idea the players come up with to open it should retroactively be the only way of opening it.

You're not running a videogame.

Keltest
2015-06-22, 01:01 PM
It shouldn't.

However, the bright idea the players come up with to open it should retroactively be the only way of opening it.

You're not running a videogame.

The problem with that is that unless youre changing reality to suit what the players did (ie the scroll of disintegrate underneath the bookshelf disappears if they use they key) theres nothing that says the other ideas wouldn't work, and if you DO change reality, then youre basically cheating at that point.

Yuki Akuma
2015-06-22, 01:03 PM
Rewarding players for creative solutions to obstacles isn't cheating.

You're not changing anything except maybe what's written in your notes. The game world only exists in what you tell the players. Does it matter if you planned for there to be a Scroll of Disintegrate under the bookshelf if the players never find it?

Keltest
2015-06-22, 01:08 PM
Rewarding players for creative solutions to obstacles isn't cheating.

You're not changing anything except maybe what's written in your notes. The game world only exists in what you tell the players. Does it matter if you planned for there to be a Scroll of Disintegrate under the bookshelf if the players never find it?

It does if they open the door and then go back and dont find the scroll you planted there. Or heck, if they find the scroll and then do something else to open the door because they want to save the scroll for when the wizard can scribe it next level.

Seto
2015-06-22, 01:13 PM
Sometimes I'm not exactly sure how hard a dungeon will be on players. If I see that it's harder than I intended, I might instantly add some healing potions to their mi-dungeon loot. If it's the reverse, I might remove some. I don't see how the Disintegrate scroll example is different (unless of course they found it and still found another way to open the door, in which case let them keep it, and if balance demands it remove another scroll from their final loot).

Keltest
2015-06-22, 01:19 PM
Sometimes I'm not exactly sure how hard a dungeon will be on players. If I see that it's harder than I intended, I might instantly add some healing potions to their mi-dungeon loot. If it's the reverse, I might remove some. I don't see how the Disintegrate scroll example is different (unless of course they found it and still found another way to open the door, in which case let them keep it, and if balance demands it remove another scroll from their final loot).

I don't know about you, but if I tried to pull something like "The only way to get past the door was to construct a battering ram out of a book shelf, a tool closet, and the party fighter", my players would probably throw the handbooks at me. No wizard is so deranged as to seal their lair with a door that can only be opened by resources they don't reliably possess.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-22, 01:23 PM
The problem with that is that unless youre changing reality to suit what the players did (ie the scroll of disintegrate underneath the bookshelf disappears if they use they key) theres nothing that says the other ideas wouldn't work, and if you DO change reality, then youre basically cheating at that point.

You're telling a story together. If the narrative gets bogged down the story gets boring. 50 pages of "okay, lockpick, tapping on the wall, pouring water to look for drains, hammering, check for secret doors and traps, Read Magic, Detect Magic, Fireball, and Knowledge (Lore) checks didn't work....um, I guess I stick my tongue out at the statue...does anything happen now?" is not interesting.

Mayhem ensues. Everyone starts texting, playing other games, or gouging their own eyes out. Don't let this happen to you.

Seto
2015-06-22, 01:28 PM
I don't know about you, but if I tried to pull something like "The only way to get past the door was to construct a battering ram out of a book shelf, a tool closet, and the party fighter", my players would probably throw the handbooks at me. No wizard is so deranged as to seal their lair with a door that can only be opened by resources they don't reliably possess.

Well, sure (your example made me smile). Honestly, my players would be glad that their plan worked and would not care much about knowing whether there were other ways.
But of course, "there's only one intended (by the wizard) way of opening the door safely" does not amount to "there is only one way, period.". The Disintegrate scroll and the key both belong to the first category. The ram, or magical teleportation, or anything that comes from the players' abilities rather than the Wizard's mansion itself, belongs to the second one.

Keltest
2015-06-22, 01:30 PM
You're telling a story together. If the narrative gets bogged down the story gets boring. 50 pages of "okay, lockpick, tapping on the wall, pouring water to look for drains, hammering, check for secret doors and traps, Read Magic, Detect Magic, Fireball, and Knowledge (Lore) checks didn't work....um, I guess I stick my tongue out at the statue...does anything happen now?" is not interesting.

Mayhem ensues. Everyone starts texting, playing other games, or gouging their own eyes out. Don't let this happen to you.

how about "We try our standard methodical procedure for testing the room." which would have been explained after the third time they spent half an hour explaining the same thing.

At which point the DM can say 'During your sweep of the room, you located a strange rune which seems to match to a hole in the wall over there" or something to that effect.


Well, sure (your example made me smile). Honestly, my players would be glad that their plan worked and would not care much about knowing whether there were other ways.
But of course, "there's only one intended (by the wizard) way of opening the door safely" does not amount to "there is only one way, period.". The Disintegrate scroll and the key both belong to the first category. The ram, or magical teleportation, or anything that comes from the players' abilities rather than the Wizard's mansion itself, belongs to the second one.

I can agree to that, however the original statement was that there should only be one way in, period, and that is whatever way the players figure out, even if you have to retroactively change things.

Telok
2015-06-22, 01:33 PM
Heh, my campaign ran for more than a real life year. I was completely up front about it being a sandbox, not being hack-n-slash, and flat out told them that blind and mindless attacks wouldn't work. That was before we started the game, they said it sounded fun.

Nine months in, at 12th level, they were told that they faced a dangerous and powerful lich and needed to prepare. Previously they had done research on enemies using the libraries, they had attacked places from unexpected directions, they had used tactics and cunning. Those all worked. They had faced enemies who made shield walls and shot them up. They had defeated enemy casters who cooperated to drop spell combos on them.

Do you think that the short, condensed version that I gave in that post was the total sum of player and character knowledge? It wasn't. The trip to the lich's lair took two sessions alone. They met people, bought scrolls and potions, dodged taxes, and insulted officials on that trip.

Why they abandoned the habits that had made them successful adventurers for the last nine levels I still don't know. A CR 7 specter in the very first crypt they opened killed one character and almost completely drained two more, they retreated for several days to recover from the very first fight. A single specter that loses initative should not be a dire threat to five 12th level D&D characters.

Heck, they still refer to it as "the time we brainfarted the lich dungeon".

Drath. That was the lich's name. I think they mentioned that name to exactly one npc, who replied that the guy was so nasty that books had been written about him. Yeah, they were totally warned, even they agreed about that.

Yuki Akuma
2015-06-22, 02:31 PM
I can agree to that, however the original statement was that there should only be one way in, period, and that is whatever way the players figure out, even if you have to retroactively change things.

That is absolutely not what I meant.

Keltest
2015-06-22, 02:41 PM
That is absolutely not what I meant.

Maybe, but it is what you said.

It shouldn't.

However, the bright idea the players come up with to open it should retroactively be the only way of opening it.

I cant think of any other way to interpret that.

The Evil DM
2015-06-22, 03:46 PM
The way I look at it, skills are integral to the way a person views and interprets the world. Many times they are automatic and should not always require direct action to access them.

An ornithologist driving down the highway doesn't need to make a conscious effort to notice that the birds pecking along the side of the road are a common species on their annual migration route far to the south. It's just the way his mind works, taking note and cataloging these things unconsciously. If something stands out, he may need to search his memory for the relevant details to figure out what's out of place. Passive vs active skill checks.

In game terms they are a free way for the GM to showcase the lovingly-created world the PC's inhabit. A rogue would notice that the locks on the door in the corner are of much higher quality than the rest of the house, a mage could tell that the knick-knacks scattered on a bedside table are actually spell components, a fighter would notice that the supposed "serving boy" is actually carrying himself with the confidence of a trained combatant.

Requiring the players to explicitly state that they are using all their skills all the time closes down an avenue for exposition for the GM's world.

Well Damn,

lots of comments between Maglubiyet and mine. I guess that is what I get for going to work.

I don't entirely disagree with that. My standard is - if you have knowledge(ornithology) 5 - a take 10 gets you a 15. Any information I would give out for a knowledge skill check of 15 is passive. Otherwise you need to use the skill. Also if you find a library, searching literature can give you bonuses. But again that is active, you spend a few hours combing the stacks for a +5 and you get better odds of finding the information you are looking for.

The comment does not invalidate my statement because I do not necessarily define a skill check as the only action. I might say the wall glistens as a liquid sheets down its surface (you can see this) and it may have an acrid smell (easily detectable) but I won't necessarily tell you that the liquid burns when you touch it, unless you actually touch it.

The key to making any situation work with this formulation is to ensure that there are no critical paths to problem solving where a singular requirement for active search of information makes or breaks adventure progress. You insert critical paths into this and you have problems. Most of the time the stuff you find in my campaigns through an active search is incidental, or a clue to some extra non-essential bit or easter egg. If you want to chase the non-essential bit be my guest but you get to work a little harder for that.

One thing with my formulation for how I handle information is the multiparty element of my campaign makes for interesting scenarios that do not occur under most RPG paradigms. My campaign runs with many people across many regions of the US under multiple GMs. There have been cases where one group records data collected - posts it into our forums - and a second group makes a connection - replies to the first group, who then returns to a site to discover a campaign easter egg.

Another interesting bit. in 2001 a group of players heard a tale of an intelligent holy sword. They investigated and found the "Lake of Certain Doom" as aptly named by Josh who is famous for such names. After finding the Lake of Certain Doom they decided it was too scary for them and they didn't want to go forward any further. They recorded a journal of their adventure and stored it in my data repository.

In 2009 another group of intrepid tomb robbers found the story, investigated it further, made contact with the original party, (we had a Skype session) Picked up where party 1 left off and claimed the sword.

Once again, I don't put easter egg type things in the critical path of any problems to solve. But once I inserted a plant that if used when brewing healing potions it would give the potion an extra +1 hit points healed per caster level of the potions maker. A player made the choice to pick that plant and try some alchemy with it. That player has a secret healing potion formula that is better than the other players.

icefractal
2015-06-22, 04:08 PM
Currently in just that situation with my group. They are standing in front of a statue, completely flabbergasted. It has a codeword written on a key in one of the statue hands that you need to speak to disable the trap on it. I gave them the hint that the key seems out of place and could be important. I think they are about to pry away the key and go search the dungeon for a keyhole.Just as an example of how different people can perceive the same info differently, I probably wouldn't guess that the word on the key is a password for the statue, precisely because it seems too blatantly easy. I mean, are we in the dungeon built by idiots? Who password-seals a door and then sets the password a few feet away in plain sight?!

Now if the word was on a scrap of parchment found in the pocket of a guard who'd be expected to go through the door during their duties, it makes a lot more sense.

Also the problem I have with a lot of riddles/puzzles in dungeons. If you think about it IC, they make no sense for at least 90% of the situations they come up in. And if you think about it OOC - it depends if you like that kind of thing. Personally, I prefer emergent opportunities for invention, but admittedly that's harder to set up.

DavidSh
2015-06-22, 04:18 PM
Who password-seals a door and then sets the password a few feet away in plain sight?!


Celebrimbor and Narvi. "Speak Friend and Enter".

icefractal
2015-06-22, 04:27 PM
Celebrimbor and Narvi. "Speak Friend and Enter".That would at least be a test for "Does the person wanting to enter speak the right language?" - not the most secure condition, but maybe what was called for in this instance. :smalltongue:

Keltest
2015-06-22, 04:36 PM
That would at least be a test for "Does the person wanting to enter speak the right language?" - not the most secure condition, but maybe what was called for in this instance. :smalltongue:

I think that's actually correct. At least at the time, things were generally peaceful. The point of the door was less to keep hostile armies out, and more to keep things like wolf packs from wandering in and making trouble.

Chijinda
2015-06-22, 04:42 PM
I have a personal example here from the Dark Heresy campaign I've been playing.

Our group had been investigating the disappearance of some holy artifacts. Along the way, we'd been sent by our Inquisitor to pick up a data cogitator that, according to a brief browsing of the data, contained nothing more than a list of shipping transcripts and order forms.

Jump to the investigation, we were beginning to figure out the basic outline-- where the artifacts had gone. How they had been taken. When they had been taken. We'd found out that some unusual equipment had been ordered in recently, and we (correctly) deduced that this was probably ordered in to help the perpetrator steal the artifacts. So! Figure out who made the order and now we have our mark! However, every single person we talked to stated that they either couldn't remember who'd ordered it in, or they'd only gotten it through someone else. It got to the point the GM had an NPC inform us (almost word for word): "I mean... if you had records of transaction or something, then it'd be easy to figure out who made this order."

The point flew right over our heads, and almost an hour of mucking about aimlessly later, the GM finally clued us in on exactly what we needed. And we proceeded to collectively facepalm that we'd forgotten that the cogitator even existed.

Pex
2015-06-22, 06:16 PM
Pathfinder game

The party is sitting in a tavern when it is overrun by kobolds. They fight back of course, and the kobolds retreat. They learn from the town officials they've been having trouble with kobolds lately, and the party agrees to help catch them. They find the kobold's lair, a water cave with a ship. They get on board the ship. They are then told they feel a very calming presence. It does them no harm. It does not affect their minds. They feel more brave.

From below deck two kobolds come on to the deck, one in chainmail another in robes. The party parleys first and the kobolds respond. One player doesn't care and attacks. Combat ensues all the while having that calm feeling. Another party member attempts some more dialogue. The chainmail kobold talks some more in response, but the first player to attack wouldn't have it and just kept attacking. Sidebar: It is a known house rule that sorcerers tend to have themes for their spells. They can still pick whatever spells they want just as long as it fits the theme. For example, a theme of rainbows allows for Color Spray, Rainbow Pattern, and Prismatic Spray, but also Disintegrate because it's a green ray, Enervation is a black ray, Teleport is jumping the rainbow, Gate is going over the rainbow, etc. Back to game. The kobold in robes is a sorcerer. His theme is dragons. He casts Magic Missile for three missiles. One missile is a gold dragon head, a second is a silver dragon head, and the third is a bronze dragon head.

The party finally figures out the chainmail kobold is a paladin and his sorcerer friend is also Good, but it's too late. The first player to attack didn't care. All kobolds had to die according to him even though it was not part of his character background. They finally kill the two kobold leaders. The town officials thank the party for defeating the kobold rebellion as they see all remaining kobolds have become slaves.

The players' metagame preconceptions that all kobolds must be Evil clouded their judgment, and now hate that town for being duped. One player sought atonement for roleplaying purposes which does set the stage for a future return to this event. At least now they recognize being within a paladin's aura for further paladin NPCs they meet.

The Evil DM
2015-06-22, 06:44 PM
Hehehe I have a kobold metagame story too.

It was a game written as a one-nighter for play at a convention. The scenario began with a Tempest (composite storm elemental) pushing a ship onto reef and rock.

When the sun rises - at the start - the players (all 9th level) are scattered in the wreckage about 500 feet from the shore of a small tropical island just past shark infested waters.

Long story short, they navigate the water, get to the island and eventually find the key NPC for the scenario an ancient Voodoo Witchdoctor. This witchdoctor is able to help them with casting any Necromancy, Enchantment or Divination spell of their choice - up to 8th level. But before he can do that he needs his voodoo doll returned. Acceptance of his price places a wasting curse upon the party should they abandon their oath to return to voodoo doll.

They accept.

He explains that they stole the doll because they wanted to know how it works, but it cannot work for them.
He gives the players a map and directions to the Kobold Caves
He gives the players information about kobolds, their trap making and their sneakiness.
Last he gives the players a pouch of valuables and says,

"When you arrive at the caves shout out to King Vishnak. Use these to trade for the Voodoo Doll. I have divined that he will value these stones more than the doll."

So the players begin to chatter amongst themselves - "Hey we are all 9th level we can waste a few kobolds"

They arrive at the kobold caves and see that the caves are dug into the side of a gorge. There are dozens of entrances between 2' and 3' tall. Any medium size character would be required to crawl in. One entrance, an obvious trap is 6 feet high.

They shout out to the King and ask for parley. When about 30 kobolds emerge from the various holes to negotiate trade for the doll, the players start an attack with a fireball on the king.

The king survives the round and retreats into the caves - even so several kobolds are killed.

Now the players are faced with a dilemma. Try and get the kobolds out of the cave or crawl in after them.

A couple hours of trying to entice the kobolds out fails and they are compelled to enter the caves. It turns into a slow painful TPK where the kobolds abused players on their hands and knees.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-22, 07:51 PM
I don't entirely disagree with that. My standard is - if you have knowledge(ornithology) 5 - a take 10 gets you a 15. Any information I would give out for a knowledge skill check of 15 is passive. Otherwise you need to use the skill. Also if you find a library, searching literature can give you bonuses. But again that is active, you spend a few hours combing the stacks for a +5 and you get better odds of finding the information you are looking for.

This is completely in line with the way I look at it too. I think we're in agreement here, but I replied to you because your comment had the most succinct quotable line. It summed up some of the earlier posts even though I don't think you were writing in support of them.

The Evil DM
2015-06-22, 08:24 PM
This is completely in line with the way I look at it too. I think we're in agreement here, but I replied to you because your comment had the most succinct quotable line. It summed up some of the earlier posts even though I don't think you were writing in support of them.

Probably appeared not to directly support the argument because I do, up to a point. Meaning tell players everything - up to a point - and this is how I define the point where I do withhold data.

Mystral
2015-06-23, 05:10 AM
The issue is that there seems to be only one way to solve the puzzle, and only one way to find the solution.

This is so, by design.


At a minimum, in such a situation, you should have something like a prop or visual aid. Hand them a drawing of the key with the writing plainly visible. Their characters are right there, looking at it, touching it. Your players, on the other hand, are reading forum posts which can easily get lost in walls of text.

Kind of hard to do in a forum RPG. I guess I could ask for their adresses and mail the props to them.


It shouldn't.

However, the bright idea the players come up with to open it should retroactively be the only way of opening it.

You're not running a videogame.

I disagree. If there is a riddle, and any solution the players come up with is automatically the answer to that riddle, it takes away from the challenge of the game. It's a form of railroading, where you force the players to succeed.

On a happier side note, my players have managed to solve the riddle, as it was supposed to be solved, after I dropped a tiny additional cue. (The way of opening the door, by the way, was to press the three eyes of the statue at the same time as saying the thing written on the key. Just pressing the buttons opened the door, but to a different place filled with worthless crap. And just saying the phrase disabled the fear aura on the statue, but didn't budge the door)

Amphetryon
2015-06-23, 06:59 AM
This is so, by design.



Kind of hard to do in a forum RPG. I guess I could ask for their adresses and mail the props to them.



I disagree. If there is a riddle, and any solution the players come up with is automatically the answer to that riddle, it takes away from the challenge of the game. It's a form of railroading, where you force the players to succeed.

On a happier side note, my players have managed to solve the riddle, as it was supposed to be solved, after I dropped a tiny additional cue. (The way of opening the door, by the way, was to press the three eyes of the statue at the same time as saying the thing written on the key. Just pressing the buttons opened the door, but to a different place filled with worthless crap. And just saying the phrase disabled the fear aura on the statue, but didn't budge the door)
Forcing Players to guess your one right answer ISN'T railroading, by your definition, though?

The Glyphstone
2015-06-23, 07:00 AM
That would at least be a test for "Does the person wanting to enter speak the right language?" - not the most secure condition, but maybe what was called for in this instance. :smalltongue:


I think that's actually correct. At least at the time, things were generally peaceful. The point of the door was less to keep hostile armies out, and more to keep things like wolf packs from wandering in and making trouble.

And it makes sense in context for Middle-Earth as well, where evil creatures like Orcs would be physically incapable of speaking a 'good' language like Elvish thanks to Tolkein's morality rules. So no infiltrators/spies either.

Mystral
2015-06-23, 07:54 AM
Forcing Players to guess your one right answer ISN'T railroading, by your definition, though?

Who talks about forcing them to guess it? They can always fail. That's not the end of the adventure.

Red Fel
2015-06-23, 08:31 AM
Who talks about forcing them to guess it? They can always fail. That's not the end of the adventure.
(Emphasis added.)

This is the key point, though. If the players cannot progress past a given point unless they know the one way to do so, it's a problem. It is the end of the adventure. I'm not saying that the other extreme - that any solution they come up with is retroactively the right one - is a good idea either, though. In my mind, they're both poor choices.

A better choice, in my mind, is a middle ground. Two points.

First, no (or few) bottlenecks. If your adventure is designed in such a way that the PCs must do a specific thing in order to progress (you know, other than the inevitable monster encounter), that's problematic. Be open to the idea of multiple paths to the same goal. Have a few in mind when you plan out the campaign.

Second, reward creativity. Again, I'm not saying that any solution is retroactively the solution. What I'm saying is that if the players come up with a creative way to overcome an obstacle or encounter, and they have the skills or materials needed to do so, let them try. Let them roll the dice. Can't open the door? One of them suggests removing it from its hinges. Let them roll their Knowledge (architecture) and Strength checks. One of them suggests going through the wall instead. Got Stone Shape, or maybe some picks and shovels? Go for it, but be aware that you might attract attention. Creative alternatives.

In the real world, there's rarely only one way to do things. Need to get to the store? Car, bike, bus, walk, cab. Buy groceries? Cash, credit, debit, barter for this chicken. Impress a potential spouse? Good hygiene, witty conversation, gear score on WoW. There are lots of ways to get things done. If your players can come up with one that should work, or even could work, despite not being the one you came up with, my policy is to let them try.

Segev
2015-06-23, 09:23 AM
Kind of hard to do in a forum RPG. I guess I could ask for their adresses and mail the props to them.You could also create a drawing of the key and post the image on the forum. Like so:

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/ancient-key-12048766.jpg

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 09:25 AM
This wasn't me. But our DM once told our friend (who was playing a monk), you see a reptilian creature with glowing red eyes. The monk's reaction? "I'm going to punch it!" I think the conversation went as such.

"It has glowing red eyes."
"Okay. I'm going to use flurry of blows."
"Glowing red eyes."
"Then I'll make a grapple check."
"Make a fortitude save."
"What?! Why?!"

The rest of us pretty much died of laughter as we walked away with new Basilisk boots and a monk statue.

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 09:38 AM
This wasn't me. But our DM once told our friend (who was playing a monk), you see a reptilian creature with glowing red eyes. The monk's reaction? "I'm going to punch it!" I think the conversation went as such.

"It has glowing red eyes."
"Okay. I'm going to use flurry of blows."
"Glowing red eyes."
"Then I'll make a grapple check."
"Make a fortitude save."
"What?! Why?!"

The rest of us pretty much died of laughter as we walked away with new Basilisk boots and a monk statue.
Did the monk character know that basilisks have glowing red eyes? Because that sounds like metagaming by the rest of you.

Segev
2015-06-23, 09:42 AM
Did the monk character know that basilisks have glowing red eyes? Because that sounds like metagaming by the rest of you.

"glowing red eyes" sure doesn't indicate "basilisk" to me. In fact, if I'm able to see that its eyes are glowing red, shouldn't I already be making my save against its gaze?

Red Fel
2015-06-23, 09:45 AM
Did the monk character know that basilisks have glowing red eyes? Because that sounds like metagaming by the rest of you.

This. "Glowing red eyes" is an extremely common descriptive phrase. You could apply it to pretty much anything, doubly so if you decide that something gains glowing red eyes when it's possessed.

Now, admittedly, reptilian creature with glowing red eyes, that narrows the field. We're not talking about a rabbit in front of a flashbulb, for instance. But there are so many reptilian creatures, and so many reasons one might have red eyes.

You could have said, for example, an eight-legged, spiny lizard with brownish scales (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG23.jpg), with glowing red eyes. That paints a bit of a better picture.

Now, I won't lump all of the blame on the DM in this. Generally, when the DM emphasizes a certain trait for the PCs like that, it's wise to roll the appropriate Knowledge skill to see if this is something to run away from really fast. Charging into battle in that situation is a bit less-than-smart. But still, agreeing with Flickerdart; this was a case where all of the players knew that "glowing red eyes" was code for "proceed with caution," and the Monk didn't seem to know that.

Segev
2015-06-23, 09:48 AM
Granted, yes. "It has glowing red eyes!" is a pretty clear variant on "Are you sure you want to do that?" So the player should probably have paused to ask, "Um, what should I be inferring from that?" at the very least. (And a good DM, faced with that question, will at the LEAST suggest a knowledge check of some sort to figure out why that's a pause-worthy description.)

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 10:00 AM
Did the monk character know that basilisks have glowing red eyes? Because that sounds like metagaming by the rest of you.
We were 14th level adventurers and had encountered multiple basilisks. They encountered it without me in the room. (I was the resident ranger/beast heart adept.)


You could have said, for example, an eight-legged, spiny lizard with brownish scales (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG23.jpg), with glowing red eyes. That paints a bit of a better picture.
To be fair, our DM is usually very descriptive. So he very well could have given us a description much like that. But as the tale is told at our table, it was the glowing red eyes that got us the most. He knew better, it was just... momentary lapse of reason. Not to mention we were in Dragonlance and darn near everything was trying to brutally murder us.


Granted, yes. "It has glowing red eyes!" is a pretty clear variant on "Are you sure you want to do that?" So the player should probably have paused to ask, "Um, what should I be inferring from that?" at the very least. (And a good DM, faced with that question, will at the LEAST suggest a knowledge check of some sort to figure out why that's a pause-worthy description.)
It wasn't directly looking at us. If I remember correctly, it was in a cavern eating some gulley dwarfs. Supposedly they were supposed to be stone, but they made their save.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-23, 10:06 AM
Agreed. I still can't figure out what the OP's example is 'hinting' at.

He could have thrown the water weird out of the water killing it due to a 20 on a roll to escape he just kinda let it live after he escaped

mephnick
2015-06-23, 10:10 AM
Really knowledge checks should be automatically called anyway. I don't see a swan and ask the world, "Do I know what a swan is?" I look at it and know or do not know what a swan is. If you decided the character could make a knowledge check about the creature, it should have just been called for immediately, or immediately rolled by the DM (if that's how you play). I may be in a minority but I feel the use of knowledge for monster identification is purely a DM responsibility. If the character has invested in the skill, it's always on. Reward them for taking knowledge skills. Don't make them remember they have knowledge: nature before they get to use it. If the characters ignored knowledge completely and didn't recognize the basilisk, that is their fault.

TL:DR - Assuming someone had the required knowledge the character should have recognized or not recognized it as a basilisk before the encounter continued, regardless of the player's ignorance.

Segev
2015-06-23, 10:14 AM
He could have thrown the water weird out of the water killing it due to a 20 on a roll to escape he just kinda let it live after he escaped

I could be misremembering, but I don't recall elemental weirds being killed by removing them from their pools.

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 10:14 AM
TL:DR - Assuming someone had the required knowledge the character should have recognized or not recognized it as a basilisk before the encounter continued, regardless of the player's ignorance.
At this point, the player and character both shared the same knowledge. I have no doubt, had this been real life, he would have run up their and started punching the basilisk. This wasn't DM neglect, it was more of our monk deciding to punch the big lizard thing before considering the information laid before him.

Amphetryon
2015-06-23, 10:26 AM
At this point, the player and character both shared the same knowledge. I have no doubt, had this been real life, he would have run up their and started punching the basilisk. This wasn't DM neglect, it was more of our monk deciding to punch the big lizard thing before considering the information laid before him.

This answer appears predicated on the notion that Player and Character have the same thought process; they don't. One is sitting around a table in an amusing t-shirt with some Funyon crumbs on it, rolling dice with friends and hearing a description he might have heard an hour ago, or a week ago. One is engaged in a life-and-death encounter with an enemy that he fought earlier that very same day.

Seto
2015-06-23, 10:28 AM
Really knowledge checks should be automatically called anyway. I don't see a swan and ask the world, "Do I know what a swan is?" I look at it and know or do not know what a swan is. If you decided the character could make a knowledge check about the creature, it should have just been called for immediately, or immediately rolled by the DM (if that's how you play). I may be in a minority but I feel the use of knowledge for monster identification is purely a DM responsibility. If the character has invested in the skill, it's always on. Reward them for taking knowledge skills. Don't make them remember they have knowledge: nature before they get to use it. If the characters ignored knowledge completely and didn't recognize the basilisk, that is their fault.

TL:DR - Assuming someone had the required knowledge the character should have recognized or not recognized it as a basilisk before the encounter continued, regardless of the player's ignorance.

I do the same thing as mentioned by The Evil DM earlier. When it's something the character would know by taking 10, I tell them and consider the check passive. If it's more obscure info, I require an active check (standard action) and consider it represents the time taken to examine the creature/surroundings and remember about it. Like, you know, I can tell you right off the bat in what year the French Revolution started (EDIT : that's because I'm French and it's like the most basic date in any of our history programs), but if you ask me what the 17th episode is in the third season of Buffy, or what the scientific name for an African elephant is, even if I know it, I have to think about it a bit.

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 10:29 AM
We were 14th level adventurers and had encountered multiple basilisks.
Then the DM should have said "you see a basilisk."

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 10:33 AM
This answer appears predicated on the notion that Player and Character have the same thought process; they don't. One is sitting around a table in an amusing t-shirt with some Funyon crumbs on it, rolling dice with friends and hearing a description he might have heard an hour ago, or a week ago. One is engaged in a life-and-death encounter with an enemy that he fought earlier that very same day.
I agree with this.

For the most part our DM leaves our characters to us. So he rarely ever prompts us to make character reaction based rolls. Of course he'll have us roll spot, listen, and the like. But if our Wizard decides not to prompt his own Knowledge (Arcana), he won't get that roll. You know? Our DM is very anti DM controlled player actions. Which has always worked out well for us.


Then the DM should have said "you see a basilisk."
I guess that just isn't how our table operates. Sometimes it bites us, but for the most part it creates a more entertaining and immersive environment for us. "You see a basilisk" vs "You see a reptilian creature with glowing red eyes", the latter just seems more immersive. I suppose there is a happy medium between the two.

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 10:34 AM
I agree with this.

For the most part our DM leaves our characters to us. So he rarely ever prompts us to make character reaction based rolls. Of course he'll have us roll spot, listen, and the like. But if our Wizard decides not to prompt his own Knowledge (Arcana), he won't get that roll. You know? Our DM is very anti DM controlled player actions. Which has always worked out well for us.
Knowledge is not an action, it's a reaction in response to detecting something. Does your DM not prompt you for saving throws, either?

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 10:44 AM
Knowledge is not an action, it's a reaction in response to detecting something. Does your DM not prompt you for saving throws, either?
Yes, Flickerdart. He does prompt us for saving throws.

The idea is, if our Wizard doesn't care enough to make the knowledge check, it is more like he is glazing over it because it isn't important to him. Luckily, our wizard is on point and loves to make knowledge checks.

The moral of the story should be "When in a deep dark dungeon, make sure to keep your Beast Heart Adept with you." Not "LoyalPaladin's DM doesn't DM in a fashion I agree with."

I'm a large proponent of DM's operating any way they like, as long as their players are all legitimately having a good time and don't take issue with the way things go down. I don't mind this way because it feels like we have a lot of influence on outcomes. With the bare bones being left out, we really have to work hard to make sure things work out in a positive fashion. Which is good for my table.

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 11:06 AM
The moral of the story should be "When in a deep dark dungeon, make sure to keep your Beast Heart Adept with you." Not "LoyalPaladin's DM doesn't DM in a fashion I agree with."
The moral of the story is "the entire table laughed at a player because the DM didn't say his character recognized a creature they've already faced before."

Keltest
2015-06-23, 11:08 AM
The moral of the story is "the entire table laughed at a player because the DM didn't say his character recognized a creature they've already faced before."

Lets be honest though, the player bears just as much responsibility. At that level, why would it ever seem like a good idea to walk up and attack a monster when the only think you know about it is that its eyes glow?

Feddlefew
2015-06-23, 11:16 AM
I think I'm just bad at giving hints. :smallfrown:

Last session players got frustrated trying to convince the goblin prince and his entourage to surrender. I'd been trying to establish through previous goblin encounters that goblins were concertedly, and would flee if given half the opportunity. These goblins were stalwart and resolute, despite being in a really creepy tower's basement.

I wanted to give the impression that something was very, very wrong; instead, the players just got frustrated as their intimidate checks failed over and over again. I even started explicitly saying thing like "this is very unusual behavior for goblins" and "these goblins are clearly not afraid of death".

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 11:25 AM
I think I'm just bad at giving hints. :smallfrown:

Last session players got frustrated trying to convince the goblin prince and his entourage to surrender. I'd been trying to establish through previous goblin encounters that goblins were concertedly, and would flee if given half the opportunity. These goblins were stalwart and resolute, despite being in a really creepy tower's basement.

I wanted to give the impression that something was very, very wrong; instead, the players just got frustrated as their intimidate checks failed over and over again. I even started explicitly saying thing like "this is very unusual behavior for goblins" and "these goblins are clearly not afraid of death".
So...what was the thing that was wrong?

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 11:26 AM
The moral of the story is "the entire table laughed at a player because the DM didn't say his character recognized a creature they've already faced before."
I think you're missing the point. The comment about its appearance was the DM saying he recognized it. Everyone knew at this point. We didn't laugh at the player. We laughed with the player. We were all having a good time. Again, as long as everyone is having a good time, the DM is doing his job. Because ultimately, Dungeons & Dragons is a game that we play for fun.


Lets be honest though, the player bears just as much responsibility. At that level, why would it ever seem like a good idea to walk up and attack a monster when the only think you know about it is that its eyes glow?
At this point, he could have left out the reptilian part. In fact, he could have left out everything but eyes and we should have known. That dungeon had pretty much geared us to assume everything was a basilisk.


So...what was the thing that was wrong?
I definitely agree with Flicker here. This wasn't your fault. The players just didn't take the hint.

Feddlefew
2015-06-23, 11:31 AM
So...what was the thing that was wrong?

Trying to run a horror campaign. Players should be scared when things go weird, not frustrated.

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 11:32 AM
I think you're missing the point. The comment about its appearance was the DM saying he recognized it.
"It has red eyes" is not the same as "it is a basilisk" no matter how much you spin it.


Trying to run a horror campaign. Players should be scared when things go weird, not frustrated.
If you want it to be scary, you describe things like the goblins fighting on while their flesh is so slashed up it's showing bone, without as much as a change of facial expression, or something. "The goblins aren't intimidated, ooOOooooOOo" is not scary.

Spartakus
2015-06-23, 11:34 AM
Yes, Flickerdart. He does prompt us for saving throws.

The idea is, if our Wizard doesn't care enough to make the knowledge check, it is more like he is glazing over it because it isn't important to him. Luckily, our wizard is on point and loves to make knowledge checks.

The moral of the story should be "When in a deep dark dungeon, make sure to keep your Beast Heart Adept with you." Not "LoyalPaladin's DM doesn't DM in a fashion I agree with."

I'm a large proponent of DM's operating any way they like, as long as their players are all legitimately having a good time and don't take issue with the way things go down. I don't mind this way because it feels like we have a lot of influence on outcomes. With the bare bones being left out, we really have to work hard to make sure things work out in a positive fashion. Which is good for my table.

Players having a good time is the important point. I've regularly asked my players if they are comfortable with the way we are playing and ended up with a party where the players were happy although the chars needed "raise dead" on a regular basis. Our Wizard invested heavily in knowledge-skills because it proved to be an effective life saver. Two examples where the players should have taken the hint:

1) The party entered a cave where a group of orc digged for an artifact. The freed human slaves told the party about a big floating eye with eye-tentacles that the orc worshipped as an avatar of their one-eyed-god. The hole party went "Oh Crap" and moved on VERY carefully except for the kobold-cleric whose player was somewhere else with his mind. He realized it was a mistake not to use a single buff the moment the Beholder won his initiative and disintegrated the kobold in the first round.
The player admitted it was his own fault and loved to play that his char was really pissed about beeing reincarnated as a stinking human by the druid.

2)The party looked for artifacts, owned by princes of a once big empire (half-dragon siblings) Every one they tracked down was made into an undead (zombie, shadow, mummy, ghost). The fifth ones faith was unknown, but the party found a powerfull crystal-ball. The (usually properly paranoid) wizard scryed for the fifth brother and looked directly into a place whit fire, chains, rivers of blood and the death-gaze of a bodak. A saving throw and a resurrection later he could at least tell the group they should prepare a travel to the abyss.

One of these seems like a cruel DM to you? Well here's the thing: Its not important that the chars like the way the game is played, but the players should have fun. Mine did

Feddlefew
2015-06-23, 11:39 AM
"It has red eyes" is not the same as "it is a basilisk" no matter how much you spin it.


If you want it to be scary, you describe things like the goblins fighting on while their flesh is so slashed up it's showing bone, without as much as a change of facial expression, or something. "The goblins aren't intimidated, ooOOooooOOo" is not scary.

Ah, yeah I should be doing that.

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 11:43 AM
Trying to run a horror campaign. Players should be scared when things go weird, not frustrated.
A big issue with horror in D&D is that fear is just a status effect.

The only time I've seen true fear in my player's eyes is when one of them was one shot by a Blackguard.

Segev
2015-06-23, 12:17 PM
The trick with horror is atmosphere. For your goblins acting strange, if the PCs and players don't pick up on it...that's fine. Don't harp on it. Let it be one thing they thought was annoyingly weird. Then present the next thing that's wrong. Again, don't harp on it. But make sure it's in the appropriate theme for the kind of horror that is going on in the background.

Despite the way it's portrayed in meta-discussion, well-done horror doesn't have the protagonists notice 5 ninty-degree angles in a square room and quiver in horror at the wrongness. It presents the five corners in the four-sided room, and then presents the fifth person seated at the table of four without additional comment. And then discusses elsewhere that four is the number of death in Chinese mythology, and has somebody jokingly (but nervously) point out that there are only four people in this mansion, followed shortly thereafter by the protagonist naming those four people...none of whom are himself. And then, perhaps, they wonder why the tax collector amongst them is dressed like a farmer and carries a scythe...

Horror is a slow creeping realization that something is wrong. That the wrongness keeps piling up, and that you're not sure what it is, combined with a hint of danger. A hint that knowing what is wrong is key to knowing just how much danger you're in, but that the more you recognize it as being off, the more dangerous it gets.


So don't feel bad that your players just got frustrated at these goblins.

Let them handle it as it is, and then keep revealing things that are off. Eventually, some of those "off" things should cost them if they haven't picked up on them as clues to the danger. Eventually, they should find themselves facing something they can't just fight, because that is the nature of horror. Whether they knew what it was or that it was coming, or are blindsided after blissful ignorance...in retrospect, everything should come out as terrifying foreshadowing.

Hawkstar
2015-06-23, 12:26 PM
"It has red eyes" is not the same as "it is a basilisk" no matter how much you spin it.The words only make up 10% of communication. "It has glowing red eyes" is the same as "it is a basilisk" if you use your "it is a basilisk" voice when saying it.

icefractal
2015-06-23, 01:28 PM
Lets be honest though, the player bears just as much responsibility. At that level, why would it ever seem like a good idea to walk up and attack a monster when the only think you know about it is that its eyes glow?Well, to be fair, at 14th level most of what you fight is going to look weird and scary. The days of going up against normal lizards as a serious fight were a while ago.

So when you run up against something like this:
This creature lurches forward on multiple arms and legs, its spine contorted into a painful curve with its hips higher than it head. Seemingly distracted and muttering to itself, the thing rarely looks up with its glowing red eyes, its hair composed of hundreds of thin, white tendrils that hang over its head like a veil.It's something you do charge in to punch, and probably not even the toughest thing you have to deal with that day.

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 02:41 PM
The words only make up 10% of communication. "It has glowing red eyes" is the same as "it is a basilisk" if you use your "it is a basilisk" voice when saying it.
And would it have hurt to use your "it is a basilisk" voice to say "it is a basilisk" instead of being intentionally vague for no reason? It's clear that, since the DM had to repeat it, the player didn't recognize whatever this "basilisk voice" is supposed to be.

Strigon
2015-06-23, 04:38 PM
And would it have hurt to use your "it is a basilisk" voice to say "it is a basilisk" instead of being intentionally vague for no reason? It's clear that, since the DM had to repeat it, the player didn't recognize whatever this "basilisk voice" is supposed to be.

You seem awfully convinced that he could've identified it as a basilisk without more than a glance.
If they've seen enough basilisks that the character should know one instantaneously, than the player should also know the description, given that he's fought basilisks at least as many times as the character.

In fact, were I in a dark lair of some description and I saw a four-legged, hairy beast, I'd first at least consider what it could be. My mind would think wolf, dog, or coyote; maybe some other options depending on where I was at the time. On the other hand, if I charged at it trying to punch it, I would most certainly not have time to see it more clearly, identify it, and choose another course of action before it looked at me.

The DM is the sole arbiter of the game. If he/she decides that, given the angle/lighting/level of obstruction that all they take in the moment they turn to face the basilisk is that it's a lizard with glowing red eyes, that's what the characters see. If they want to assume that's a basilisk, they are free to do so. If they want to look it over once more to take in the rest of the details, they may do that as well. And if they decide they don't care what it is, all that matters is how many times you have to punch it before it dies, then it's certainly not the DM's job to pull them out of that particular fire.

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 04:44 PM
You seem awfully convinced that he could've identified it as a basilisk without more than a glance.
The other players (who had fought the basilisks just as many times) were all able to recognize the basilisk at a glance without needing to roll dice.


If they've seen enough basilisks that the character should know one instantaneously, than the player should also know the description, given that he's fought basilisks at least as many times as the character.
The character fought basilisks days ago, as part of his job. For the player, it might have been months or even years, as part of a hobby.

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 04:54 PM
The other players (who had fought the basilisks just as many times) were all able to recognize the basilisk at a glance without needing to roll dice.
Yes, we were able to recognize it. This was because all the basilisks had been described in the same fashion. It was very apparent that it was a basilisk. Even the player admitted that he and the monk should have known better and thought twice. It wasn't poor explanation, it was just one of those "players not taking a hint", like this thread requested.


The character fought basilisks days ago, as part of his job. For the player, it might have been months or even years, as part of a hobby.
It was maybe a day in character and less than 10 minutes out of character.

Yukitsu
2015-06-23, 04:56 PM
It was maybe a day in character and less than 10 minutes out of character.

A lot of players hate DMs that are deliberately vague.

Strigon
2015-06-23, 04:58 PM
The other players (who had fought the basilisks just as many times) were all able to recognize the basilisk at a glance without needing to roll dice.

The character fought basilisks days ago, as part of his job. For the player, it might have been months or even years, as part of a hobby.

No, the players assumed, given the evidence, it was probably a basilisk.
The only one who didn't is the one who decided he didn't care.

And the character had brief, do-or-die encounters with one, in which their primary concern was surviving. Ever have something really intense happen, and tried to recall the details, only to find you can barely remember anything but the feeling? Imagine that, except your body is trying to fight off being turned to stone, you've probably been raked by claws bigger than your chest, and every second carries with it the very real chance it could be your last. Remembering details of such an event would be difficult at best. Recalling those details in a split-second without a moment's thought? Even more so.

LoyalPaladin
2015-06-23, 05:00 PM
A lot of players hate DMs that are deliberately vague.
Different strokes for different blokes. I'd already stated that everyone at the table (including the statue monk) found this incredibly amusing. Not to mention this is still one of our favorite moments at our table.

Telok
2015-06-23, 05:20 PM
A lot of players hate DMs that are deliberately vague.

And a lot of players hate DMs that spend time describing everything.

Choose your poison.

Yukitsu
2015-06-23, 05:25 PM
And a lot of players hate DMs that spend time describing everything.

Choose your poison.

"It's a basilisk" is about as short as anything descriptive could ever hope to be honestly.

I think the biggest crux of the complaint is that the player is being blamed for a lack of clarity on the DM's part. I think pretty much any number of things I've encountered in D&D have had a similar or identical description to the one you gave that basilisk.

Strigon
2015-06-23, 05:33 PM
"It's a basilisk" is about as short as anything descriptive could ever hope to be honestly.

I think the biggest crux of the complaint is that the player is being blamed for a lack of clarity on the DM's part. I think pretty much any number of things I've encountered in D&D have had a similar or identical description to the one you gave that basilisk.

The thing is, if their descriptions are that similar, why should the character instantly know it's a basilisk?

Yukitsu
2015-06-23, 05:41 PM
The thing is, if their descriptions are that similar, why should the character instantly know it's a basilisk?

Mostly because eyes are about the least useful means to determine what something is unless it's a beholder or some such. I think if things like the fact that it's a wingless lizard, about 8 foot long would be easier to guess what it were but even there why are you trying to hide what it is exactly if the character should fully know what it is? So you can be like "gotcha" to the player? There's enough people I suspect that just get fed up with DM's that are like that. Personally I'm not going to begrudge a DM that plays his games that way but I would be pissed at a DM that blames the player for his lack of clarity.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-23, 06:23 PM
...
My standard is - if you have knowledge(ornithology) 5 - a take 10 gets you a 15. Any information I would give out for a knowledge skill check of 15 is passive. Otherwise you need to use the skill. Also if you find a library, searching literature can give you bonuses. But again that is active, you spend a few hours combing the stacks for a +5 and you get better odds of finding the information you are looking for.


Your standard falls well within DM discretion and I would have no difficulty with this as a player in your campaign.

I use a different standard. I don't handle Knowledge checks as routinely passive.


Really knowledge checks should be automatically called anyway. I don't see a swan and ask the world, "Do I know what a swan is?" I look at it and know or do not know what a swan is.

Ornithology supports The Evil DM's point quite well.

It also supports my point.

Someone in your life watches birds. Ask around. (They call it birding, not bird watching.)

If you see a swan, that's not a Knowledge check, that's an eye exam.

Do you know how many kinds of swans there are? No, you do not.

But your birding friend? He knows.

Trumpeter swan, mute swan, tundra swan... and that's just the Top Three Swans.

And if he were out in looking at birds in the field, he would have binoculars and be carrying field guides and would still need to focus enough to determine the exact nature of the swan even if it were eating out of his hand. (FYI: Swans are territorial and dickish. They are as likely to attack you as they are to eat out of your hand.)

And swans are one thing.

Ducks. You know how many kind of ducks there are? No, you do not.

But your birding friend? He knows.

Mallard, Mandarin, Goldeneye, Canvasback, Scoter, Canvasback, and don't even get them started on Teals and Mergansers.

And seagulls. You know how many kind of seagulls there are? No, you do not.

Your birding friend doesn't even know how many kinds of seagulls there are.

From the time I started writing this post to the time I clicked Submit Reply, the number of species of seagulls has changed.

I fear I may have drifted from my point, which is Knowledge checks don't lend themselves routinely to passive use. At least not in my campaign.

The Evil DM
2015-06-23, 06:38 PM
Your standard falls well within DM discretion and I would have no difficulty with this as a player in your campaign.

I use a different standard. I don't handle Knowledge checks as routinely passive.

- Snip -



My methodology was explicitly called out as how I manage flow of information from DM to Player. Thus in practice, my methodology is internal. How do I decide what information I pass. Also - Even though I know what is on character sheets, and even though I am aware Shaine the Inquisitor has Alchemy, I may, from time to time, unintentionally neglect a detail I might normally give out.

It is just as important for the player to have some initiative in managing flow, give back to the GM information and It behooves the player to "PAY ATTENTION". Even if a player asks, "Hey I have Alchemy, can I tell what that liquid oozing down the wall is?" I might think to myself, oh yeah I should have said that and just tell the player. Sulfuric Acid naturally formed by copper sulfate ores in the wall reacting with water seepage.

Flickerdart
2015-06-23, 08:12 PM
Do you know how many kinds of swans there are? No, you do not.
This is, however, irrelevant - all swans share a common set of abilities, such as flight, swimming, and a nasty temper, which are the important things about it.

It also doesn't mean that you shouldn't get a Knowledge check upon seeing something. It just means that you got a 15 and know it's a swan, and your friend got a 50 and knows what kind of swan it is down to the last syllable of its Latin name.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-23, 08:40 PM
If you see a swan, that's not a Knowledge check, that's an eye exam.


Suppose that the presence or appearance of the swan is somehow unusual -- it's out of season, undernourished, in the wrong environment, or something.

Assuming that the PC is an ornithologist, do you require the player to take the initiative to discover this information and request to make an Ornithology roll? That seems to be what you're saying.

Red Fel
2015-06-23, 08:51 PM
Trying to run a horror campaign. Players should be scared when things go weird, not frustrated.

I keep saying this, and I will likely continue to keep saying this. Any DM plan that includes the words "the players should" is doomed to fail. Fire will likely be involved.

I don't mean things like codes of conduct, like "Players should arrive on time," or "Players should try to be considerate at the table," or "Players should refrain from drinking all of the milk, some of that is for breakfast, and never drink directly from the carton, that's just rude." I mean things like "The players should travel with the merchant caravan," or "The players, seeing this, should realize that something is wrong," or "The players should quickly recognize who the bad guy is." That stuff will fail. Almost assuredly.


A big issue with horror in D&D is that fear is just a status effect.


The trick with horror is atmosphere. For your goblins acting strange, if the PCs and players don't pick up on it...that's fine. Don't harp on it. Let it be one thing they thought was annoyingly weird. Then present the next thing that's wrong. Again, don't harp on it. But make sure it's in the appropriate theme for the kind of horror that is going on in the background.

These. Presenting horror doesn't mean presenting a single detail and pointing to it, saying, "Hey, isn't that scary?" You've got a cabin with a bleeding wall; that's cute. The corpses are all arranged in a circle around the altar, bowing; somebody had a lot of time on his hands. The lizard's eyes are glowing red; charming. A single detail does not horror make.

Horror is ambient. Horror is pervasive. Horror is a series of innocuous coincidences which, adding up, convince the players - not the PCs, the players - that something is horribly wrong, despite the ready availability of explanations to the contrary. Horror is a sensory phenomenon, an environmental fact against which the players cannot fight, a feeling for which resistance is futile.

Goblins acting out of character are not horrifying. Goblins acting like perfectly normal humans (not goblins, but humans), building a perfectly normal town in the middle of a cavern, walking down cobblestone streets and selling their wares from carts, playing with their children around hearths and enjoying drinks after work in the tavern, whom the players soon discover have no eyes in their sockets, are horrifying.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-23, 09:14 PM
...
all swans share a common set of abilities, such as flight, swimming, and a nasty temper, which are the important things about it.

It also doesn't mean that you shouldn't get a Knowledge check upon seeing something.
...

If the swan is just background fluff, then it doesn't come into play at all.

Your assumptions about what the important aspects of the swan might be could very well differ from the DM's.

If the player was tasked by an alchemist to gather feathers from a trumpeter swan, then the Knowledge check comes into play, and I don't treat Knowledge checks like Spot checks.


Suppose that the presence or appearance of the swan is somehow unusual -- it's out of season, undernourished, in the wrong environment, or something.

Assuming that the PC is an ornithologist, do you require the player to take the initiative to discover this information and request to make an Ornithology roll? That seems to be what you're saying.


If I told the player that this swan seemed somehow unusual, it would fall to the player to at least ask a follow-up question before I ruled he might be making a knowledge check.

If the player indicates to me that his character is at least focusing on the swan or studying it, I would take that as an opening to a knowledge check.

I am inclined to give a player some benefit of the doubt, but the player has to give me something to work with.

I am inclined to treat a Knowledge check like a Sherlock Scan, but I'm not going to assume that Sherlock is constantly making Knowledge checks every round passively.

If a player attempts to establish some sort of SOP like, "My character makes knowledge checks for everything he sees every round", I'm going to rule that a character who attempts to focus on everything is focused on nothing.

D+1
2015-06-23, 10:55 PM
My first reaction is - don't rely on hints.

If you want players to know something - TELL them. Don't hint and then get frustrated when they don't figure it out. Do you know what they're thinking and WHY they're thinking that? Oh, you DO? Then, again, you don't need to hint.

If you want a player to do something in particular and they're not doing it then maybe you need to quit DMing for a while and roll up a PC yourself. Their characters are not YOUR PC's to play. If there is something outrageously sub-optimal or downright stupid that they're doing that you don't want them to do, then SAY IT. Don't hint at it and then blame them for not reading your mind. Are you roleplaying as Agatha Christie or running a D&D game as the DM?

If you don't want to have to tell them everything point blank then as a DM maybe you need to do better at getting the players engaged and interacting, eagerly SEEKING information and advice from you rather than parceling it out to them in small-as possible puzzle-shaped pieces and complaining that they haven't even put together the edge parts yet.

Just suggesting that's a possibility...

Telok
2015-06-24, 01:46 AM
As this is in the general rpg forum it needs to be remembered that not all games use D&D style skill checks to determine what people know (and in 3.5 d&d farmers have problems identifying livestock). Plus there are times when simply telling the players everything is inappropriate or boring. Heck, there are even times when it would be best for an npc to give the players hints instead of blurting everything out.

Hints are not a bad thing. Sometimes people just miss them and that should be expected. This thread is for those times when players missed broad, repeated, glowing neon hints. Not for bashing people who don't play the games the way that you play them.

Segev
2015-06-24, 01:12 PM
(and in 3.5 d&d farmers have problems identifying livestock)

Eh, to be fair, a lot of sins can be covered by giving the farmer 4 ranks in Profession(farmer). While Profession skills shouldn't blanket substitute for Knowledges, they should provide enough knowledge to do the job associated. They're a good way to pick up a bunch of associated sub-skill uses. You may be able to use Use Rope to help you out with the rigging and knots while sailing a ship, but you can also use Profession(Sailor). You wouldn't be able to use Profession(Sailor) to help you tie knots unassociated with seamanship; you would need Use Rope. But Profession(Sailor) encompasses the myriad needed skills as applied to that particular job.

So your farmer isn't going to be an ornithologist, nor providing a dissertation on the differences between all the species in the woods (which would be Knowledge(Nature)); he will, however, be able to tell you about animal husbandry, and picking a good workhorse from a bad one, and the best kind of chicken to buy or sell at a given time of year, and what an egg is worth as well as which market to take it to for best profit without spoilage.

dream
2015-06-24, 02:40 PM
I never hint. I tell blatantly. I've never had this problem and I've never had anyone tell me they think I am too blatant.

Don't be a mysterious DM, it's not helpful and I doubt your players appreciate it, it doesn't add to the immersion. Telling, blatantly and colorfully does.
+1 This.

As a GM, I've learned to have two types of information: what players can know & what they can't. What they can know I give openly and often, so there's no confusion, to the point of being hyper-descriptive.

What they can't know is a secret GM stuff. Experience has shown me that using hints (1) may not provide the sort of additional information the player(s) need to handle the situation, and (2) may create further confusion due to misunderstanding (of the hint). Plus, if I find myself considering giving the players hints, I know I made the mistake of limiting their choices regarding how a situation is handled. But, that's ME :smallwink:

mephnick
2015-06-24, 03:12 PM
I am inclined to treat a Knowledge check like a Sherlock Scan, but I'm not going to assume that Sherlock is constantly making Knowledge checks every round passively.

If a player attempts to establish some sort of SOP like, "My character makes knowledge checks for everything he sees every round", I'm going to rule that a character who attempts to focus on everything is focused on nothing.

It seems we just have massively differing opinions on what knowledge is. For me, it's an innate always on passive and active ability. As a DM, if my player sees a swan I tell him it's a swan because that's an easy passive check. If there's something more important about a swan, like the breed is extremely rare, I immediately ask for a roll and that knowledge is hidden behind a higher DC which the player may or may not achieve. This gives the player the opportunity to tell the group, "Aha! It's a rare rumpled stiltskin!", because despite it being rare knowledge, the character knows that knowledge innately if he makes the roll and thus it doesn't make sense for him to wait and ask if he knows it. If he fails the roll and simply recognizes the swan but can't guess the breed, then he can research it or what have you later. Your "Sherlock Scan" doesn't make sense to me. The higher DC represents the challenge to bring that information forward from the back of your mind in the first place.

Flickerdart
2015-06-24, 03:21 PM
(and in 3.5 d&d farmers have problems identifying livestock)
Only if you use the Knowledge rules wrong. It's a DC10 or lower for common knowledge questions, and "what is a cow" is a common knowledge question. You'd need to use the 10+HD check to come up with its special abilities, but "this is a cow" is not one of them.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-24, 03:49 PM
It seems we just have massively differing opinions on what knowledge is. For me, it's an innate always on passive and active ability.

I just want to emphasize that I agree that this is nothing more than a differing opinion, and that I would have no issue with a DM running a game in your style.

This is why I make a point of telling players how Knowledge skills work in my campaign during Session Zero.

Another simile that might be useful is to think of the Knowledge skill in a manner similar to the Tricorder in the Star Trek milieu. You have to turn it on, and you have to "aim" it at something. (like all analogies, it is inherently imperfect, just as the Sherlock Scan analogy.)

Knowledge skills seem generally suited to give enough information to advance a plot, rather than to give characters with high knowledge enough information to bypass the plot. That's a generality.

In my campaign, Knowledgeable characters are entitled to significantly more information than characters with no knowledge skills. The players respond to this, there is always at least one character who invests skill points in the "core curriculum".

Yukitsu
2015-06-24, 03:58 PM
I just want to emphasize that I agree that this is nothing more than a differing opinion, and that I would have no issue with a DM running a game in your style.

This is why I make a point of telling players how Knowledge skills work in my campaign during Session Zero.

Another simile that might be useful is to think of the Knowledge skill in a manner similar to the Tricorder in the Star Trek milieu. You have to turn it on, and you have to "aim" it at something. (like all analogies, it is inherently imperfect, just as the Sherlock Scan analogy.)

Knowledge skills seem generally suited to give enough information to advance a plot, rather than to give characters with high knowledge enough information to bypass the plot. That's a generality.

In my campaign, Knowledgeable characters are entitled to significantly more information than characters with no knowledge skills. The players respond to this, there is always at least one character who invests skill points in the "core curriculum".

What happens if the players didn't take that specific knowledge skill which is required to advance the plot? Do they simply fail?

Keltest
2015-06-24, 04:00 PM
What happens if the players didn't take that specific knowledge skill which is required to advance the plot? Do they simply fail?

Books fall from the sky until they crack one open and read the necessary information.

Yukitsu
2015-06-24, 04:03 PM
Books fall from the sky until they crack one open and read the necessary information.

Doesn't that mean that any ranks in knowledge are just wasted skill points? You're giving them the same information no matter what they did. And taking more knowledge obviously doesn't reward the player in any meaningful way since you're only planning on giving them the same information anyway.

Hawkstar
2015-06-24, 04:04 PM
Only if you use the Knowledge rules wrong. It's a DC10 or lower for common knowledge questions, and "what is a cow" is a common knowledge question. You'd need to use the 10+HD check to come up with its special abilities, but "this is a cow" is not one of them.

Actually... seeing how few people actually recognize a cow when they see the real deal IRL...

Segev
2015-06-24, 04:06 PM
Actually... seeing how few people actually recognize a cow when they see the real deal IRL...

You're going to have to elaborate on that claim.

Keltest
2015-06-24, 04:09 PM
Doesn't that mean that any ranks in knowledge are just wasted skill points? You're giving them the same information no matter what they did. And taking more knowledge obviously doesn't reward the player in any meaningful way since you're only planning on giving them the same information anyway.

Not really. If they don't have the knowledge skill, ill only feed them the bare minimum amount of information they need to carry on with the plot. Plus, Knowledge skills can be used outside of events necessary to move the plot forward.

NichG
2015-06-24, 04:09 PM
Doesn't that mean that any ranks in knowledge are just wasted skill points? You're giving them the same information no matter what they did. And taking more knowledge obviously doesn't reward the player in any meaningful way since you're only planning on giving them the same information anyway.

Well, he said he explains this during his pre-chargen session, so players can decide for themselves if it'd be a wasted investment given that information.

Flickerdart
2015-06-24, 04:10 PM
Actually... seeing how few people actually recognize a cow when they see the real deal IRL...
While I can't say I've met anyone incapable of recognizing a cow who was simultaneously over the age of 6 months old, it's sensible for common knowledge to be different for urban dwellers and rural dwellers.

Hawkstar
2015-06-24, 04:28 PM
You're going to have to elaborate on that claim.

A generalization of responses from at least 3 different people I personally introduced to cattle: "OMG IS THAT A HORSE?"

Amphetryon
2015-06-24, 04:30 PM
. . . must avoid cross-thread joke.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-24, 05:25 PM
What happens if the players didn't take that specific knowledge skill which is required to advance the plot? Do they simply fail?

This is a very good point.

In fact, this is a profoundly important point.

I don't allow a failed knowledge check to stop an adventure cold.

As a DM, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to design an adventure or plot in a manner that doesn't require any single die roll to succeed to advance the plot. If a die roll, be it a Knowledge check or a Saving Throw, is plot sensitive in any way, I feel an obligation to figure out, in advance, "What happens if this roll fails?"

The lack of knowledge does have an impact on how a plot point might turn, but must never stop the plot cold.

Generally, a successful Knowledge check gives some in-game advantage to the players.



In regards to the "never hint, just tell" school of thought...

There is no perfect communication system.

Errors in communication can't be pre-emptively prevented.

All communication methods that are reliable in any way account for the possibility of error and include some coping mechanism for when error occurs.

"Don't hint, just tell" is not a communication system. One person's hint is another person's two-by-four upside the head.

Players are not entitled to error-free judgment from a DM.

Players are not entitled to be protected from themselves.

Sometimes the fault lies with the DM, but not always.

Exchange of information is like a game of catch, or a tango. It doesn't work if both participants aren't paying attention.

NichG
2015-06-24, 06:16 PM
Honestly, the root problem with information that is 'needed' to advance the plot is designing the game so that its advancement is contingent on the players doing a specific thing at some point. Even if you provide the players all the information you think they 'need', the whole point of them being the players is that they might decide to act on that information in any which way they feel like.

You can plan for things that the players might do, but you can't ever assume that the players will absolutely act a certain way or perform a certain action. Whenever your plan says 'and then the PCs do X' there should at the very least also be a branch that says 'but if they do nothing, then instead...' Until you're ready to stop running the game, all of those branches should lead to scenarios which are at the least playable, even if bad things are going down.

If you design things that way, then failing to get the hint or even going completely off-road and doing random stuff that you didn't plan for doesn't mean that the game stops, it just means that you go down a different branch of possible outcomes.

Pex
2015-06-24, 06:46 PM
This is a very good point.

In fact, this is a profoundly important point.

I don't allow a failed knowledge check to stop an adventure cold.

As a DM, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to design an adventure or plot in a manner that doesn't require any single die roll to succeed to advance the plot. If a die roll, be it a Knowledge check or a Saving Throw, is plot sensitive in any way, I feel an obligation to figure out, in advance, "What happens if this roll fails?"

The lack of knowledge does have an impact on how a plot point might turn, but must never stop the plot cold.

Generally, a successful Knowledge check gives some in-game advantage to the players.



In regards to the "never hint, just tell" school of thought...

There is no perfect communication system.

Errors in communication can't be pre-emptively prevented.

All communication methods that are reliable in any way account for the possibility of error and include some coping mechanism for when error occurs.

"Don't hint, just tell" is not a communication system. One person's hint is another person's two-by-four upside the head.

Players are not entitled to error-free judgment from a DM.

Players are not entitled to be protected from themselves.

Sometimes the fault lies with the DM, but not always.

Exchange of information is like a game of catch, or a tango. It doesn't work if both participants aren't paying attention.

You do have a point. A player should take some initiative in engaging the world. That is his participation in playing the game. He needs to do stuff. What the counterpoint is trying to convey is the reverse metagame. Normal metagame is a player having his character do or react to something the player knows about but the character doesn't. This is of course generally frowned upon. The reverse metagame is information the character would/should know in character but the player hasn't a clue. Since the player doesn't know what his character should know he has no reason to ask the DM a question about something.

You would fault the player for never asking so he never gets the information. The counter argument is since the character should know the DM should do the prompting in giving the information. The easiest way to determine when the DM should prompt is the passive check. That represents guaranteed information the character should know in character regardless of the out of character knowledge of the player. Hopefully it will stimulate the player to ask questions about that subject. In addition, for information harder to know than the passive check the DM calls for the check and have the player roll to determine if the character does know the information in character despite the player out of character not having a clue. Your decision of never prompting the player is the disconnect of this disagreement in playstyles.

goto124
2015-06-24, 08:49 PM
I view passive checks as 'seeing if the character has the knowledge to know a piece of information'.

Also, info should not be 'know or die', or 'know or don't progress'. Maybe if the PCs learn a monster's weakness they can kill it fast, but if the players never found it/didn't catch onto the hints/whatever, they just take more time and resources to take down said monster.

And the bit about books falling: I think it's about the time and effort taken to actively seek out the information, such as making a detour when you could've continued the adventure. Still, if the players don't even decide to look for the info, the game shouldn't grind to a halt.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-24, 09:44 PM
...
You would fault the player for never asking so he never gets the information. The counter argument is since the character should know the DM should do the prompting in giving the information.
...

I didn't mean to leave you with that impression.

I consider Knowledge checks to be different than Spot and Listen checks.

There is a term that appears in both the Spot and Listen skills... "in a reactive manner".

This term doesn't appear in the SRD under Knowledge. Knowledge doesn't require an action, so I have no issue with a Knowledge check coming into play during combat, but that doesn't mean it functions "in a reactive manner."

The Listen skill works even when the character is sleeping. (-10 circumstance check, but still...) That is my understanding of "in a reactive manner". The only reason that this doesn't apply to a Spot check is because that is generally absurd.

But both Spot and Listen checks come into play when there is an invisible opponent nearby. That also qualifies as "in a reactive manner".

There is no way I am ruling that a character is going to be making any Knowledge checks in his sleep.

There is no way I am ruling that a character is going to be able to make a Knowledge check to identify an invisible creature without a Spot and a Listen check first coming into play to give some sort of clue to the character about the nature of the creature. (Any creature could be invisible for any number of reasons.)

I'm not asking for the magic words like "I'm using [specific Knowledge skill]."

I only require that the player be responsive to the information that I'm presenting to the group. A follow up question. Something like "What more can you tell me more about this swan?" Anything is better than nothing.

This doesn't strike me as an undue burden to the player.

Pex
2015-06-24, 10:25 PM
I didn't mean to leave you with that impression.

I consider Knowledge checks to be different than Spot and Listen checks.

There is a term that appears in both the Spot and Listen skills... "in a reactive manner".

This term doesn't appear in the SRD under Knowledge. Knowledge doesn't require an action, so I have no issue with a Knowledge check coming into play during combat, but that doesn't mean it functions "in a reactive manner."

The Listen skill works even when the character is sleeping. (-10 circumstance check, but still...) That is my understanding of "in a reactive manner". The only reason that this doesn't apply to a Spot check is because that is generally absurd.

But both Spot and Listen checks come into play when there is an invisible opponent nearby. That also qualifies as "in a reactive manner".

There is no way I am ruling that a character is going to be making any Knowledge checks in his sleep.

There is no way I am ruling that a character is going to be able to make a Knowledge check to identify an invisible creature without a Spot and a Listen check first coming into play to give some sort of clue to the character about the nature of the creature. (Any creature could be invisible for any number of reasons.)

I'm not asking for the magic words like "I'm using [specific Knowledge skill]."

I only require that the player be responsive to the information that I'm presenting to the group. A follow up question. Something like "What more can you tell me more about this swan?" Anything is better than nothing.

This doesn't strike me as an undue burden to the player.

No, that's being fair, but it points to the scenario that originally started this conversation: a monk not getting the hint about red eyes. As far as that gaming group is concerned, the red eyes should have been enough information to let the player know it was a basilisk because of previous experience. It's like an in-joke you can only get if you happened to be there. However, from an outsider view, like us in this Forum not part of that gaming group and Flickerdart in particular, we had no way of knowing that red eyes meant a basilisk. I was thinking an undead creature myself and the monk risked losing levels or ability scores. In Flickerdart's perspective, it was obvious the monk player hadn't a clue what he was facing but his character, the monk, knew because the monk fought the creature before. Flickerdart took issue that the DM did not tell the player straight up it was a basilisk. Instead, the player was left clueless about something his character should know, effectively died because of it, and got laughed at.

The same could be said about the infamous gazebo story. It doesn't matter how analytical Eric is as a player. It was obvious he, the player, had no clue what a gazebo was. It should have been explained to him before the situation got ridiculous, not afterwards and have his character be "killed" by it and get laughed at.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-24, 10:59 PM
If I told the player that this swan seemed somehow unusual, it would fall to the player to at least ask a follow-up question before I ruled he might be making a knowledge check.

Do you ever offer up information especially for a character based on his skills? "Since you're an ornithologist, you notice that this swan seems unusual."

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-24, 11:07 PM
No, that's being fair, but it points to the scenario that originally started this conversation: a monk not getting the hint about red eyes. As far as that gaming group is concerned, the red eyes should have been enough information to let the player know it was a basilisk because of previous experience. It's like an in-joke you can only get if you happened to be there. However, from an outsider view, like us in this Forum not part of that gaming group and Flickerdart in particular, we had no way of knowing that red eyes meant a basilisk. I was thinking an undead creature myself and the monk risked losing levels or ability scores. In Flickerdart's perspective, it was obvious the monk player hadn't a clue what he was facing but his character, the monk, knew because the monk fought the creature before. Flickerdart took issue that the DM did not tell the player straight up it was a basilisk. Instead, the player was left clueless about something his character should know, effectively died because of it, and got laughed at.

The same could be said about the infamous gazebo story. It doesn't matter how analytical Eric is as a player. It was obvious he, the player, had no clue what a gazebo was. It should have been explained to him before the situation got ridiculous, not afterwards and have his character be "killed" by it and get laughed at.

In regards to the Basilisk scenario... the least I would do is tell the player, "if your character looks this creature in the eye, he's going to need to make a saving throw," and I'd be much more likely to just identify the monster as a Basilisk.

When a lack of communication would take a player's character out of play... I'd go with the two-by-four over the head, and if that didn't work... and I was satisfied it was a simple miscommunication... I'd nullify the entire effect and chalk it up to Unreliable Narrator.


Fighter: Remember when the monk tried to fight that bunny?
Monk: I thought it was a Basilisk...
Cleric: It was a Tiny mammal with long ears and a cotton tail.
Monk: I thought it was a cute Basilisk. Can we not talk about this please?

turbo164
2015-06-25, 08:40 AM
Actually... seeing how few people actually recognize a cow when they see the real deal IRL...

I grew up in a town with more cows than humans. I once heard a city slicker ask "Steers...those are the ones with the horns right?"

Which is nowhere near as bad as the one who, during deer season, shot and field-dressed a MULE.

Gravitron5000
2015-06-25, 11:34 AM
Books fall from the sky until they crack one open and read the necessary information.

Books fall. Everybody learns.

I had a DM that would throw telephone poles with notes attached at our characters when we were being particularly obtuse. Nearly getting hit by the DM's telephone poles is about as unsubtle a hint as I've encountered, and only works in games where breaking the 4th wall also works.

Silus
2015-06-25, 01:15 PM
These. Presenting horror doesn't mean presenting a single detail and pointing to it, saying, "Hey, isn't that scary?" You've got a cabin with a bleeding wall; that's cute. The corpses are all arranged in a circle around the altar, bowing; somebody had a lot of time on his hands. The lizard's eyes are glowing red; charming. A single detail does not horror make.

Horror is ambient. Horror is pervasive. Horror is a series of innocuous coincidences which, adding up, convince the players - not the PCs, the players - that something is horribly wrong, despite the ready availability of explanations to the contrary. Horror is a sensory phenomenon, an environmental fact against which the players cannot fight, a feeling for which resistance is futile.

Goblins acting out of character are not horrifying. Goblins acting like perfectly normal humans (not goblins, but humans), building a perfectly normal town in the middle of a cavern, walking down cobblestone streets and selling their wares from carts, playing with their children around hearths and enjoying drinks after work in the tavern, whom the players soon discover have no eyes in their sockets, are horrifying.

I find personally that the best sort of horror is the after-the-fact horror. Dropping scenery hints and such with the intent to frighten or wig out the players and not really caring ip the players pick it up then. "The doors are locked from the inside", "There are scratch marks on the inside of the prison's incinerator", "The door you opened about five minutes ago is now closed and latched", etc. The players brush it off as the DM trying to be scary until they realize that now they're a few miles underground in an abandoned dwarven prison, trapped with the incoporeal undead prisoners that are aware of the PCs and have been toying with them from the get-go.

Cue mad rush to GTFO.

Edit: I personally subscribe to the methodology of if the players don't pick up on repeated hints (like if a place is mad haunted or regarding puzzles for example) then, well, no skin off my nose. The players opt to leave and come back with, say, an NPC that can crack the puzzle or something, then that's fine, but I try to do my best to not give out hints and let the players sort things out on their own.

However, if players ask, I'll generally prompt for some sort of ability score check to determine if the character could sort out things that the player can't seem to grasp.

Yukitsu
2015-06-25, 02:22 PM
Goblins acting out of character are not horrifying. Goblins acting like perfectly normal humans (not goblins, but humans), building a perfectly normal town in the middle of a cavern, walking down cobblestone streets and selling their wares from carts, playing with their children around hearths and enjoying drinks after work in the tavern, whom the players soon discover have no eyes in their sockets, are horrifying.

I did this once. It worked so well that half the party tried to use a boat made of human arms across an ocean of acid, but the one player shoved off so fast no one else got on. When the arms started thrashing at him, he decided his character would just shoot himself. :smallannoyed:

The irony is not a single thing on that island really presented any sort of physical threat to them.

SkipSandwich
2015-06-25, 02:27 PM
The most i've ever had is players that needed a couple extra prods before deciding that the Phrenic T-Rex that just turned the DMPC into abstract art might be a bit much for a party of 4 9th levels who had already run through 2 encounters that day. I had it 1shot the party druid with Mind Thrust, but apparently having 18d10 of damage land against the character with the highest will saving throw of the party was too subtle, so then it manifested Fission. That was the point where they ran to the fort and commandeered a balastae (not part of my original plan but it sounded awesome so I ran with it).

The druid survived by the way, I had him make a fort save to stabalize at -9 which he succeeded at. But they really should have run when they saw the first double fistful of d10's come out.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-25, 04:51 PM
Which is nowhere near as bad as the one who, during deer season, shot and field-dressed a MULE.

The question is, did his DM allow him a Knowledge (Ungulates) roll and he failed it? Or did the DM withhold the information because the player didn't ask for it?

GM: "You see a brownish four-legged mammal with hooves..."

Slicker: "I shoot it and dress it!"

(Yes, I realize this was RL)

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-02, 12:19 AM
I have mentioned this elsewhere on a different thread, but I think it could be germane to this thread.

The Players are tackling the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

I have decided that they have one year to stop the Temple cold in its tracks or the Big Bads are going to manage to reactivate the volcano on which the Temple sits.

The players act like they have forever. They take 20 on all search checks. They take weeks or even months out to allow the wizard to craft magic items.

I keep track of the time.

In the first half of the year, everything is normal.

The players continue to act like they have forever.

I give the players the following series of hints that they might want to move more quickly.


In the middle of summer, earthquakes happen with increasing frequency. Not enough to cause damage, just enough to cause concern.

When the PCs defeat Mooks in the Temple, they discover written instructions from the Big Bads to the Mooks that there is something important happening during Needfest. (Greyhawk Christmas... kinda...) I make sure the players know what Needfest is, and when Needfest happens.

The instructions from the Big Bads to the Mooks offer no details other than something important will be happening during Needfest. This being a Temple of Elemental Evil… I don’t offer any specific details, since the Big Bads are clinically insane but not stupid… but it is a safe bet that they aren’t organizing a Secret Santa.

The last three months of the year, a permanent storm system forms over the caldera creating a permanent blizzard effect. It slows the characters down a bit, but by now the PCs are able to easily overcome it as an obstacle.

Earthquakes are becoming more frequent in the area, nearly daily tremors are detectable at this point.

The NPC patrons who sent the PCs to investigate the Temple in the first place make a point of visiting the PCs in Hommlet, and asking the PCs to act with a greater sense of urgency. The Patrons (retired adventurers) point to the Earthquakes and Magic Blizzard of Doom, and point out that they are signs that things aren’t going as well as they could. They also ask if there is anything important that the PCs want them to know. Anything at all. Anything unusual. The PCs don’t even bother mentioning the Needfest information.



The players decide to take the week of Needfest off from adventuring. The players are in the middle of extended down time while the wizard is making some more magic items. They weren’t in the Temple. They weren’t even in Hommlet. They were in the Free City of Greyhawk.

In their absence, the volcano is reactivated, destroying the Temple, and the nearby countryside. Hommlet is spared, barely. All of the treasure and XP left in the Temple is gone. The Cult of the Elder Elemental Eye is one step closer to freeing Tharizdun. The balance of power in Greyhawk has shifted and Evil has a stronger toehold there.

But the PCs now had some really sweet magic items... so there was that.

Their NPC patrons gave them a Nice Job Breaking It, Hero speech... then a pat on the back... followed by a Forget It, Jake... It's Chinatown.

I think my hints were adequate. The players were just more interested in dungeon crawling and magic item creation than "big picture" stuff.

The players just didn’t respond to those hints. I wasn’t going to tell them blatantly, “you need to take out the Big Bads before Greyhawk Christmas or the volcano is going to blow up.” I told them something important was planned, where it was planned and when it was planned.

I felt that that was plenty of information to prompt an increased sense of urgency and perhaps an attempt to gather more information. It was up to the players to respond to these clues and do something that might entitle them to more information.

Discuss.

The Evil DM
2015-07-02, 04:29 AM
-snip-
Discuss.

You would do well in my game. I play things pretty much the same way. Things are happening in the world. If you don't pay attention to them its on you.

Here is my story, this one is an inverse. It illustrates how the antagonists pay attention to the PCs.

At some point in the game the PCs were captured and thrown into the slaver pits of a civilization. (details are irrelevant)
The players stage an uprising and escape.
They flee into the wilderness with about 100-150 other escaping slaves - leaving a fairly good trail.
They run a total of 20 miles from the slave pits and stop. - I ask "Are you certain?"
They establish a base camp on a forested hill overlooking the valley between themselves and the slave pits
From here they foray outward to take on patrols searching for them.
The players head north kill a bunch of patrols, leave the bodies and a radial trail back to the hill.
The players head south, kill a bunch of patrols, leave the bodies and a radial trail back to the hill.
The players repeat - east, northeast, southeast.

Over the course of several campaign days the kill a whole bunch of enemies but live a ring of bodies, and spoke like trails pointing directly to the hills.

Now - bad guys are not stupid

During their encounters I mention the patrols are getting closer to the hill
They are seeing tracks of patrols travelling on their trails
I mention that in places where they have left bodies, the bodies have been found and retrieved
I go so far as to draw the pattern of their trails on the map so they could see where they have been.

Then on the sixth campaign day I mention that from their vantage point they see a force of about 500 enemies crossing the river in the center of the valley (10 miles away)
They tell me "We are hidden in our camp they won't find us."

Within a few hours they are encircled and the TPK is eminent.

Guran
2015-07-02, 04:44 AM
Last session, my players were having a sky battle against goblins standing on junk gliders and flying in scrap planes that clearly exploded at random moments. Then a goblin rocketeer entered the fray. Yes, this is a goblin with a missile strapped to its back. It was flying towards the ancient library the players and their mounts were defending. Our dragonborn fighter riding a wyvern, decided to deal with the goblin guided missile. While he was flying towards the missile, I reminded him that his wyvern has a breath weapon. (Yes, it does.)
'Nah, I'm just gonna fly straight at it and hit it.'
One earth-shaking explosion later, our dragonborn was KO and his wyvern down to 5 health. When the second missile came in, the rangers shot it from a safe distance.

PS: The dragonborn survived. Don't worry.

Keltest
2015-07-02, 04:50 AM
I have mentioned this elsewhere on a different thread, but I think it could be germane to this thread.

The Players are tackling the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

I have decided that they have one year to stop the Temple cold in its tracks or the Big Bads are going to manage to reactivate the volcano on which the Temple sits.

The players act like they have forever. They take 20 on all search checks. They take weeks or even months out to allow the wizard to craft magic items.

I keep track of the time.

In the first half of the year, everything is normal.

The players continue to act like they have forever.

I give the players the following series of hints that they might want to move more quickly.


In the middle of summer, earthquakes happen with increasing frequency. Not enough to cause damage, just enough to cause concern.

When the PCs defeat Mooks in the Temple, they discover written instructions from the Big Bads to the Mooks that there is something important happening during Needfest. (Greyhawk Christmas... kinda...) I make sure the players know what Needfest is, and when Needfest happens.

The instructions from the Big Bads to the Mooks offer no details other than something important will be happening during Needfest. This being a Temple of Elemental Evil… I don’t offer any specific details, since the Big Bads are clinically insane but not stupid… but it is a safe bet that they aren’t organizing a Secret Santa.

The last three months of the year, a permanent storm system forms over the caldera creating a permanent blizzard effect. It slows the characters down a bit, but by now the PCs are able to easily overcome it as an obstacle.

Earthquakes are becoming more frequent in the area, nearly daily tremors are detectable at this point.

The NPC patrons who sent the PCs to investigate the Temple in the first place make a point of visiting the PCs in Hommlet, and asking the PCs to act with a greater sense of urgency. The Patrons (retired adventurers) point to the Earthquakes and Magic Blizzard of Doom, and point out that they are signs that things aren’t going as well as they could. They also ask if there is anything important that the PCs want them to know. Anything at all. Anything unusual. The PCs don’t even bother mentioning the Needfest information.



The players decide to take the week of Needfest off from adventuring. The players are in the middle of extended down time while the wizard is making some more magic items. They weren’t in the Temple. They weren’t even in Hommlet. They were in the Free City of Greyhawk.

In their absence, the volcano is reactivated, destroying the Temple, and the nearby countryside. Hommlet is spared, barely. All of the treasure and XP left in the Temple is gone. The Cult of the Elder Elemental Eye is one step closer to freeing Tharizdun. The balance of power in Greyhawk has shifted and Evil has a stronger toehold there.

But the PCs now had some really sweet magic items... so there was that.

Their NPC patrons gave them a Nice Job Breaking It, Hero speech... then a pat on the back... followed by a Forget It, Jake... It's Chinatown.

I think my hints were adequate. The players were just more interested in dungeon crawling and magic item creation than "big picture" stuff.

The players just didn’t respond to those hints. I wasn’t going to tell them blatantly, “you need to take out the Big Bads before Greyhawk Christmas or the volcano is going to blow up.” I told them something important was planned, where it was planned and when it was planned.

I felt that that was plenty of information to prompt an increased sense of urgency and perhaps an attempt to gather more information. It was up to the players to respond to these clues and do something that might entitle them to more information.

Discuss.

Did your players have any reason to care about the setting at all, beyond whether or not they could sell their stuff? It sounds like they didn't.

NichG
2015-07-02, 07:09 AM
In their absence, the volcano is reactivated, destroying the Temple, and the nearby countryside. Hommlet is spared, barely. All of the treasure and XP left in the Temple is gone. The Cult of the Elder Elemental Eye is one step closer to freeing Tharizdun. The balance of power in Greyhawk has shifted and Evil has a stronger toehold there.

...

Discuss.

Sounds potentially awesome. What happened next?

Kesnit
2015-07-02, 08:17 AM
(Snip)
The players were just more interested in dungeon crawling and magic item creation than "big picture" stuff.

The players just didn’t respond to those hints. I wasn’t going to tell them blatantly, “you need to take out the Big Bads before Greyhawk Christmas or the volcano is going to blow up.” I told them something important was planned, where it was planned and when it was planned.

I felt that that was plenty of information to prompt an increased sense of urgency and perhaps an attempt to gather more information. It was up to the players to respond to these clues and do something that might entitle them to more information.

Discuss.

I think the bold is the most important thing. You were running one kind of game; your players were playing another. Neither type is wrong, but if everyone isn't on the same page, things like this happen.


Within a few hours they are encircled and the TPK is eminent.

As you said, this is a similar situation. This time, though, it sounds like the players were thinking of themselves as HEROES, not just PCs in a story. Of course the HEROES won't die, because the HERO never does!

Both of these stories come down to "make sure everyone knows what kind of game is being played."

Segev
2015-07-02, 10:42 AM
That all sounds acceptable, to me. As a player, I'd be kicking myself for not paying attention, if I cared. If I didn't realize I "could" have stopped it, I'd just think it was a plot event meant to kick us onto the next quest.

Did you send them on their next quest thereafter?

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-02, 02:18 PM
Did your players have any reason to care about the setting at all, beyond whether or not they could sell their stuff? It sounds like they didn't.

Wow. Judgmental much?


Sounds potentially awesome. What happened next?

...You were running one kind of game; your players were playing another. Neither type is wrong, but if everyone isn't on the same page, things like this happen.

That all sounds acceptable, to me. As a player, I'd be kicking myself for not paying attention, if I cared. If I didn't realize I "could" have stopped it, I'd just think it was a plot event meant to kick us onto the next quest.

Did you send them on their next quest thereafter?

They went on their next quest soon after. They were rich and powerful at this point, I just made sure they understood that they had won all their battles, but managed to lose the war. And if they continued losing the war, it was going to be a problem, if for no other reason than they were going to run out of safe places to sell stuff.

This was the first campaign for all of the players using the 3.x system.

And the wizard player was all, "You mean I can make magic items?"

And I was all, "Yeah."

And he was all, "Really? My character can make a magic item. Not just a scroll or a potion? Like a magic sword or something?"

And I was all, "Dude, you can totally make magic items."

And he was all, "This, I gotta see."

And he really couldn't believe it even when it was happening. Each time he made a magic item, he was like a kid on Christmas Morning. The novelty never wore off.

But he really didn't understand the whole time aspect of the magic item creation system, and that I wasn't going to put the entire setting on hiatus while he feathered his nest. A 2,000 gp item like a +1 sword? 2 days. A 5,000 gp item? 5 days. No big deal. But suppose you are making... for instance... Boots of Striding and Springing (6 days)... and outfitting five characters with them? 30 days.

And I didn't hint about this. I went two-by-four over the head with this fact.

"If you spend 30 days making these items, the cultists aren't going to be sitting around doing nothing. They are going to adjust and they are going to adapt. Don't expect the exact same situation when you return to the Temple. And it will be worse, not better. You understand this? You still want to take a month off? Okey-dokey..."

As to the notion of us playing two different games... I was fine with that.

The game wasn't in danger of foundering just because the players didn't take the hints. If they took the hints, the game would go in one direction. If they didn't take the hints, the game was going in a different direction. I felt prepared for both directions. I never felt the need to force the players off of their selected path. Their actions in game and at the table suggested to me that they felt that I was respecting their prerogative to decide how they would approach the adventure.

The magic items made "in-house" allowed them to better optimize their characters, at the expense of time. If they used the "foraged" magic items, then the characters would not have the most optimal "load outs", but they could Shock and Awe the Cultists.

The players appeared to be enjoying themselves during the adventure, so I rolled with it.

I feel that we communicated well.

They were disappointed that they didn't stop the Cult from blowing itself up.

The 'cruelest' thing I did was show them the "opportunity cost" of their decision.

I read them a partial list of the treasure and magic items that were destroyed by the eruption.

That hit them where they lived.

But they didn't give me the impression that they felt cheated. They accepted that their decision was legitimate, and that the consequences of their overall strategy were proportional. If they had spent less down time on magic item creation, they would have had access to more treasure sooner.

Keltest
2015-07-02, 02:24 PM
Wow. Judgmental much?

I calls em as I sees em. It sounded to me like there was a significant lack of concern for the setting in the group, which is why they didn't feel especially pushed to save it. Either that or you were a lot less clear on how cataclysmic their deadline was than you thought you were, but given what you described, the former strikes me as more likely.

And there isn't anything wrong with that. But as a DM you should be aware of what game your players think theyre playing.


This was the first campaign for all of the players using the 3.x system.

And the wizard player was all, "You mean I can make magic items?"

And I was all, "Yeah."

And he was all, "Really? My character can make a magic item. Not just a scroll or a potion? Like a magic sword or something?"

And I was all, "Dude, you can totally make magic items."

And he was all, "This, I gotta see."

And he really couldn't believe it even when it was happening. Each time he made a magic item, he was like a kid on Christmas Morning. The novelty never wore off.

But he really didn't understand the whole time aspect of the magic item creation system, and that I wasn't going to put the entire setting on hiatus while he feathered his nest. A 2,000 gp item like a +1 sword? 2 days. A 5,000 gp item? 5 days. No big deal. But suppose you are making... for instance... Boots of Striding and Springing (6 days)... and outfitting five characters with them? 30 days.

And I didn't hint about this. I went two-by-four over the head with this fact.

"If you spend 30 days making these items, the cultists aren't going to be sitting around doing nothing. They are going to adjust and they are going to adapt. Don't expect the exact same situation when you return to the Temple. And it will be worse, not better. You understand this? You still want to take a month off? Okey-dokey..."


Personally, I would have done something like give him a crafting golem or a familiar or something that would allow him to apply his crafting skills without requiring his physical presence. Or heck, just give the party a mage friend who will craft stuff for them if they can provide the materials and recipe (and fund it). Youre the DM. Youre allowed to say "Yes, you can do/have this stuff without spending half your available time working on it."

Kish
2015-07-02, 02:55 PM
For the record, once I told this player that the spell didn't work, he just stopped listening.

He didn't want to know what was going on. He didn't care what was going on. He was so locked into the perceived injustice that attached to the DM saying "your spell isn't working" that he stopped responding to what I was saying.

The only person with trust issues in this group was this player. He'd had some really bad DMs in the past, and he was just not getting past it.

One time, between game sessions, I was chatting him up about the game. His trust issues came up and he went on about previous games and egregious DM rulings, and I said something like, "Look you had a couple of crap DMs. I get it. But you have to stop treating it like you did two tours of duty in Vietnam. This thing where you assume I'm trying to screw you over every time I sit behind a DM screen is getting old. Enough already."

Eventually, he came to understand that I wasn't an inherently adversarial DM, but he always struggled with trust issues.
That's way more inspiring than I expected the end to be when you first posted.

It sounds like you handled the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil thing perfectly, too.

Friv
2015-07-02, 03:10 PM
I'll toss one into the mix.

I ran a rather disastrous game of D&D 3.0 back in high school, for any number of reasons, but there is one particular story that applies well to this thread. After some unfortunate tactical decisions, the bulk of the party (two clerics and a fighter) had been captured by slavers. They had been taken to the local mostly-evil city, where the slavers decided to sell the clerics to the Grand Arena; the gods the clerics worshipped weren't the gods of the city, so they didn't think it was blasphemy, and a couple of holy healers could get the injured or near-dead warriors of the arena back on their feet quickly. They also sold the fighter there to be a gladiator.

We all knew, OOC, that the party's wizard was a few days behind the group, and was putting together a plan to save them, so this seemed like a good way to have a small storyline, a few cool fights, and things would work out.

Only one of the clerics absolutely, steadfastly denied having any magical powers, and was incredibly uncooperative. I suggested to him that playing along might get him to stick with the others, and plot an escape, and he refused, and he kept rolling well enough on his Bluff to convince the arena that he wasn't a cleric, and the slavers had messed up.

So they took him somewhere else, I don't recall, and warned him that if he tried that crap again they'd sell him on a slave galley as a rower.

So he did it again.

At this point, I stopped the game, and directly asked him, "What are you doing?"

He replied, "If I refuse to be useful, they won't be able to get any money for me so they'll let me go free."

I said, "They won't let you go, they'll sell you to a slave galley. They just told you that."

He said, "They're bluffing."

I said, "They are not bluffing."

He said, "I'm pretty sure that they're bluffing."

And thus he was sold to a slave galley, and had to make a new character.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-02, 04:45 PM
At this point, I stopped the game, and directly asked him, "What are you doing?"

He replied, "If I refuse to be useful, they won't be able to get any money for me so they'll let me go free."

I said, "They won't let you go, they'll sell you to a slave galley. They just told you that."

He said, "They're bluffing."

I said, "They are not bluffing."

He said, "I'm pretty sure that they're bluffing."

And thus he was sold to a slave galley, and had to make a new character.

In my experience... when the DM stops the game, that is a two-by-four over the head.

It's like the Director yelling "CUT! What the hell was that?" on a movie set.

And hindsight is always 20/20...

I wouldn't be above saying something like, "I need you trust my judgment on this. Go along with this set up. I know it sucks. I know you don't want to do it, but I need the benefit of the doubt on this. If you don't go along with this, I'm going to have to take your character out of play. I really don't want that. Work with me."

I suppose there might have been some way you could have improvised a method of keeping the player character in the Cast... somehow.

The problem wasn't the "hint". The problem was that you weren't prepared for a player to pull a Crazy Ivan.

(For those who might not know... a Crazy Ivan is an unpredictable and sudden maneuver ordered by the Russian submarine commander in The Hunt for Red October.)

Every DM has been there at one point or another.

What happens if Ulysses refuses to leave his tent (the players resist the Call to Action)?

What if a player tries to Take A Third Option? Even if no Third Option is apparent. (Third Options are never obvious, until they work. Then they become the First Option.)

Worse, what if the player actually read the rules and stumbled upon crappy advice like "All things should be possible, just give them a high DC... derp-de-derp-diddly-derp" or "The DM should never say No... because shmorp-de-borp!" and their character actions are informed by this well-intended tripe?

It is better to have some idea what to do if the players don't take a hint than to attempt to devise a bulletproof method of exchanging information.

The Fun Covenant is a mission statement, not a plan.

Yukitsu
2015-07-02, 04:50 PM
I'll toss one into the mix.

I ran a rather disastrous game of D&D 3.0 back in high school, for any number of reasons, but there is one particular story that applies well to this thread. After some unfortunate tactical decisions, the bulk of the party (two clerics and a fighter) had been captured by slavers. They had been taken to the local mostly-evil city, where the slavers decided to sell the clerics to the Grand Arena; the gods the clerics worshipped weren't the gods of the city, so they didn't think it was blasphemy, and a couple of holy healers could get the injured or near-dead warriors of the arena back on their feet quickly. They also sold the fighter there to be a gladiator.


Their biggest mistake was not keeping enough explosives on their person to prevent the bolded part. Sure it's a party wipe, but better that than getting captured by slavers.

Friv
2015-07-02, 05:11 PM
I suppose there might have been some way you could have improvised a method of keeping the player character in the Cast... somehow.

The problem wasn't the "hint". The problem was that you weren't prepared for a player to pull a Crazy Ivan.

(For those who might not know... a Crazy Ivan is an unpredictable and sudden maneuver ordered by the Russian submarine commander in The Hunt for Red October.)

Every DM has been there at one point or another.

What happens if Ulysses refuses to leave his tent (the players resist the Call to Action)?

What if a player tries to Take A Third Option? Even if no Third Option is apparent. (Third Options are never obvious, until they work. Then they become the First Option.)

Worse, what if the player actually read the rules and stumbled upon crappy advice like "All things should be possible, just give them a high DC... derp-de-derp-diddly-derp" or "The DM should never say No... because shmorp-de-borp!" and their character actions are informed by this well-intended tripe?

It is better to have some idea what to do if the players don't take a hint than to attempt to devise a bulletproof method of exchanging information.

The Fun Covenant is a mission statement, not a plan.

Honestly, looking back at the player and the game, I think that was was happening was that the player thought that he was calling my bluff. He'd just been through a major fight that ended with the party losing and no one dead, because I try to write ways for the game to survive a loss in battle. I'm pretty sure that he decided I was too wimpy to remove a character from the game, and thus that he didn't have to do anything to play along because I would just change things to keep him safe no matter what he did.

NichG
2015-07-02, 08:20 PM
They went on their next quest soon after. They were rich and powerful at this point, I just made sure they understood that they had won all their battles, but managed to lose the war. And if they continued losing the war, it was going to be a problem, if for no other reason than they were going to run out of safe places to sell stuff.

The game wasn't in danger of foundering just because the players didn't take the hints. If they took the hints, the game would go in one direction. If they didn't take the hints, the game was going in a different direction. I felt prepared for both directions. I never felt the need to force the players off of their selected path. Their actions in game and at the table suggested to me that they felt that I was respecting their prerogative to decide how they would approach the adventure.


The important point is that the game can go on, with the setting changed as a consequence of the PCs actions or inactions.

I think though that its hard to tell players to change their way of thinking or to grow, and trying to 'help' too much by reminding them about things can seem like nagging or railroading if they've already decided to themselves that they don't care and the consequences be damned. 'The cultists will be up to stuff if you take a month off' ends up sounding like 'the DM is trying to cajole us to go on his adventure' rather than 'we will actually regret not going'

Given that point, I'd actually say that it was a mild mistake to tell the players things like 'are you sure' and afterwards 'look at all the treasure that got destroyed' or 'you won't have places to sell stuff'. Its not a big mistake, but it shuts down the possibility in the future of the players themselves coming to that conclusion and having a moment of revelation. Instead what you could do is to use the in-game world to show the growing consequences, taking pains to not editorialize and to not specifically 'go after' the PCs, but just to have the natural consequences accumulate.

Incidentally, I agree with Keltest's call that the players don't care about the setting. Its very easy for that to happen, and this kind of thing is a common indicator. If everything in the setting has been 'please, save me!' without returning an emotional connection back to the players in return, then many players will slowly drop out of character and just treat the game like a game - e.g. they'll focus on the concrete metrics of progress like XP and gold.

GungHo
2015-07-06, 10:11 AM
No, the players assumed, given the evidence, it was probably a basilisk.
The only one who didn't is the one who decided he didn't care.

And the character had brief, do-or-die encounters with one, in which their primary concern was surviving. Ever have something really intense happen, and tried to recall the details, only to find you can barely remember anything but the feeling? Imagine that, except your body is trying to fight off being turned to stone, you've probably been raked by claws bigger than your chest, and every second carries with it the very real chance it could be your last. Remembering details of such an event would be difficult at best. Recalling those details in a split-second without a moment's thought? Even more so.

I'm pretty sure if I get attacked by an alligator and my only recourse for survival is to hack it to death with a machete that I'm going to remember what alligators look like, even if I don't necessarily know an alligator is called an alligator. Now, if you say, well, it could be an alligator or a crocodile, I get that. But those are reasonably enough in the ballpark that I'm going to think that the only good one is a dead one. In the case of a basilisk, it's an eight legged alligator. There aren't a hell of a lot of eight legged alligators running around. I guess if all the guy's ever seen was an basilisk, "eight legged alligator" would be a pretty good start for what he's looking at. But, if he's seen an alligator and he's seen a basilisk, I'm pretty sure he knows which one is which. Unless he sees a two-headed basilisk. In which case, he should just let the alligators finish mating.


A generalization of responses from at least 3 different people I personally introduced to cattle: "OMG IS THAT A HORSE?"
Good thing no one was riding the cow, otherwise we might have an outbreak of centaurs. In any case, if the character in question had an INT score below 6, I could see them repeatedly trying to pet the eight legged crocodile and calling it a "kitty", but the person who started this quandary didn't mention any sort of special circumstances or need supervision to keep the character from licking the walls.

icefractal
2015-07-06, 01:54 PM
Worse, what if the player actually read the rules and stumbled upon crappy advice like "All things should be possible, just give them a high DC... derp-de-derp-diddly-derp" or "The DM should never say No... because shmorp-de-borp!" and their character actions are informed by this well-intended tripe?.Off topic, but for some reason this phrase amused me and I need to make it into a feat:

Shmorp-de-Borp [General]
If you believe it, you can do it. And with the power of self-delusion, you can believe a lot.
Prerequisites: Autohypnosis 4 ranks
Benefit: When rolling a check for something would normally be impossible, you can instead roll an Autohypnosis check, DC 10 + 2x the CR of the strongest foe involved. If you succeed, reality itself will bend to fit your goal (like an unsafe Wish). However, within a few hours, there may also be considerable backlash (also like an unsafe Wish).