Glass-Cannons, Whinging, and Blame

[Talakeal]

Have you tried making a "common sense" trait, feat, merit, or stat? If you players are never following common sense, it may be at what you view as common sense doesn't make sense to them. In no small part because they don't know everyoyou do, but also possibly because they don't have the same world understanding do.

Let them buy and/or roll on a "common sense" stat when you think they are overlooking something obvious, and point it out to them as something their characters would know.

I have it. Players don't take it though, because they prefer to spend their resources on numerical bonuses. Pretty much the same reason they don't cast divination spells or invest in lore skills actually.

They have, on occasion, just asked me why I don't just tell them what to do when they get lost or are about to do something stupid, and I have considered it but I am really hesitant to open up that can of worms as it is basically playing their characters for them, which makes me feel like a cheater and could easily open the door to accusations of railroading.


I don't think that would help. The problem is not a lack of common sense, it's that they take personal offense to the concept of anything preventing them from indulging in their power fantasies. Their characters don't forget that an incorporeal enemy can't be hit by swords, they hate the fact that incorporeal enemies exist who could potentially not die to their swords.

And this.


Or... quite literally any other DM can give him that, if they want to.

And he can take a hike from this particular game so that Talakeal can run the game he wants, if he can find enough other players.

Desirable playstyle is a two-way street and Mystery Player is free to run or play in whatever other games he wants if this one doesn't scratch his itch.

Even in Talakeal's Bizarro Gaming Universe (tm), I'm still not aware of anything that forces Chuckles to keep turning up if he's having that bad a time.

Yeah, he is a lot more critical of other people's games than he is of mine, which is why I said that I still think we enjoy the vast majority of time spent gaming together, its just that we both take the times we don't enjoy far too seriously.


Shrug. I'm mainly here for the roleplay - I can do that regardless of the level of challenge of the combat. So this difference impacts my fun not one iota (or makes it easier, because it reduces the chances that my character will die, and I'll be forced to play a new one).

So "grinding" (or, more generally, playing a seemingly suboptimal style / one not explicitly designed and intended for your specific purposes) need not *necessarily* reduce others' fun.

That's nice if you are allowed to RP in combat. In my experience they will turn on players who make sub-optimal decisions even more readily than they will on DMs.

When one of my (former) players left my 3.5 group for a 4E one, he asked me to come along with him, but he warned me that once the minis came out, the RP stopped, and that I would not be invited back if I "sabotaged' their team for IC reasons.

That's why I think I am picturing something far different from other people in the "but its what my character would do!" thread; they are picturing stealing from or attacking the party or something, while I am imagining something like an honorable knight who stays back to protect the women and children or allows a foe to pick up a dropped weapon rather than striking him down unarmed.


That feels like the game was cool. I'm asking what makes the character seem cool & competent.

I don't know. What are you getting at?

IMO having high numbers on your character sheet and using them to accomplish great things most people could never dream of is pretty much the definition of competent. I am very curious how you see it.


Endure? How about "learn from" and "improve thanks to"?

That's a good lesson in theory.

Its a bit harder to take away something positive from people screaming profanity, accusing me of lying / cheating, throwing dice / models / shoes across the room or at one another, or threatening to end the friendship over the game. And a lot of the feedback comes in the form of hyperbole told to a third party months or even years after the fact.


So how do we change that, to make the PCs feel competent?

Got me. Its really more of a player issue than a character or game design issue. I would imagine the answer has something to do with asking leading questions so the players come to the right decision while thinking it was their idea, but I am not at all skilled in that sort of thing.

Also, its not necessarily about what I think is common sense; when I am a PC I generally act as recklessly as anyone. Things like "In a hostage situation, if you go in guns blazing, someone could easily get hurt," are pretty much universal imo.

Although, I could be wrong. Last year when one of my players nearly got killed by attacking when they were at a disadvantage, they espoused that if an enemy has gained a tactical advantage over you, the correct choice is always to immediately attack. In my opinion, if someone gets the drop on you and shoots the gun on their hand, charging them with your fists is a damn foolish thing to do, but many of the people I have proposed that question to have disagreed.


It also feels like, if a character had a "10" (your system only goes to 10, right?) in Intelligence, and the player said "they were born a genius, never had to work or study to be smart, everything always came easily to them", you would judge them as unheroic, regardless of their actions.

Depends on what they do with it and why.

If they are curing cancer, probably. If they are hanging out at amateur chess tournaments to feel smug and superior, certainly not.

The idea that they never had to work hard at anything is fundamentally a ludicrous one though; everyone has limits that they can push, and I would generally expect people who are being heroic to push at those.

Generally, heroism requires either dedication or bravery as well as good intentions, and preferably all of the above.

For example, if I saw a gang of school kids beating up another child, I would intervene, as would, I think, most decent people. But as a grown man, I am not in any danger from grade schoolers, so I wouldn't call it particularly heroic on my part. Stopping a gang of adults in a similar situation, especially if they were armed, would be very heroic.






I'd go even further and claim that it is an intrinsic part of superman's character that he specifically doesn't use violence to enforce his ideas.

No, but he does generally use physical force. He is so powerful that he doesn't need violence, but he still picks people up and carries them to jail at the speed of light, or melts their weapons / drug stashes with his heat vision, or whatever. I mean, the big message of "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" is that he doesn't need to KILL people, he can simply mutilate them and put them into a drug induced coma! Gee, thanks Superman, that's so much better?

You could also say the same thing about Batman or Spiderman, but they come across differently to me. Batman is a non-super-powered guy whose parents were killed by street crime, and Spider Man is a teenager who tries to be connected to his local community, hence the "Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman".

Don't get me wrong, I like Superman when he is well written. The original idea of "What if there was a working class innocent who couldn't be bullied around by those with institutional power" is solid, but it so often warped into the complete opposite, a big blue and red dictator who knows better than anyone and will force you to adhere to his ideals because he was simply born better than you.

IMO the best Superman is in For the Animals where he is metaphorically buried under a stack of letters from people who are asking him for help and the knowledge that even with all of his power he can't save everyone, while the worst is the one whose title I don't remember where Lois Lane is injured too badly for modern medicine to save her, so Superman simply stops time, reads every medical textbook ever written, and then uses his laser vision to become the world's best surgeon. Way to crap on all the effort that real world heroes put into saving lives.


Who knows? We only have Talakeal's side of the story.

When formulating a solution, you can really only use the information you are given.

[Segev]

I have it. Players don't take it though, because they prefer to spend their resources on numerical bonuses. Pretty much the same reason they don't cast divination spells or invest in lore skills actually.

They have, on occasion, just asked me why I don't just tell them what to do when they get lost or are about to do something stupid, and I have considered it but I am really hesitant to open up that can of worms as it is basically playing their characters for them, which makes me feel like a cheater and could easily open the door to accusations of railroading.Maybe give them the trait for free for one campaign? I will note that, if they're asking you why you don't just tell them those things, they may be backhandedly accusing you of railroading with hidden rails. i.e., they're accusing you of having "one true way" to solve the problem, and they're saying they can't read your mind.

This is part of that low trust that you and your players seem to have for each other. I think the only way to address this is to step out of character and have discussions about what's going on in the game a lot more often. If they're floundering, ask them what they think is going on. If they offer a course of action that you think common sense would say is ridiculous, they may well not perceive the situation the same way you do. Ask them what they expect the results of their actions to be, and then discuss with them what their PCs would know about the situation and work out refinements to get the results they're looking for.


And this.Possibly, but that's not quite what it sounds like, to me, from what you've described. It sounds like, to me, your players feel like you trick them by having hidden information, or that you've got a single solution and they're playing a guessing game until they figure out what you intended.

I'm not saying they're right, but I am saying that, while power fantasy indulgence is likely a factor, that's not what I think the core of the problem is.

Again, to try to rebuild trust with your players, do a LOT more out of game discussion of what it is they want to achieve. Actively ask them, any time you have any question about the wisdom of their actions, what it is they expect their actions to achieve, and how hard or easy they think it is. Ask them why they think that, if it doesn't immediately make sense to you. Correct any misaprehensions they may have about the situation, the setting, how you think NPCs would reasonably be expected to react, etc.

Try to avoid having "twists" for a while, just until you establish a baseline, and then make sure your twists don't amount to "haha, you thought people liked chocolate, but it turns out this one guy you were counting on liking chocolate hates it and wants to murder you for suggesting he take it!" sorts of things. Twists, when they happen, should be hinted at. Foreshadowed.

But again, spend more at-table time when players are telling you what they want to try making sure you and they agree on what the logical outcome of their actions, should they succeed, would be.

[Frogreaver]

Now that my gaming group has been vaccinated, I am preparing to get back behind the screen again in the coming months. The other night I was discussing potential character concepts when one of the players said that they were going to go without armor because "armor does nothing"*.

This made me face palm, because it brought up one of my longest recurring frustrations as a GM, and the root of many of my horror stories.

To put it bluntly, players don't think about defense when making their characters, but then blame me when something bad happens to them.


Unless they are actually going for a tank / defender build, most players will optimize their offensive potential, without a second thought toward defense. Although some players and games suffer worse than others, this is a problem that transcends systems or groups.

Like, last time I ran 3.5 D&D, I literally had a player spend 64k gold buying a +4 sword (when they already had a +3) without spending the 1k gold to get +1 armor. And I constantly see people asking me permission to drop their constitution score below eight. Oh, and I had a mage with a four strength who would constantly rant and rave about how cheap grappling was because it always worked on them.

And, I mean, it would be fine, its their decision, but the problem is they refuse to learn from it, because they instead have to place blame. Sometimes they blame the rules, or the module, or their fellow PCs, but usually they blame me. Anytime their fragile little glass cannon gets hurt, let alone taken out of action or even killed, its because I am a killer DM who doesn't know how to balance the game. And anytime an enemy exploits one of their glaring weaknesses, its because I have a grudge against them and am "picking on them" for some imagined slight.

It has driven me nuts in the past, and I really want to cut it off at the pass in the future.

So, any advice on getting players to make the connection between their choice to neglect their defenses and bad things happening to their characters?


TLDR: How do I got players to acknowledge the correlations between choices when building /equipping a character and their survival in play?




*: My system uses degrees of success and bounded accuracy, so armor is always going to have, at absolute minimum, a ten percent chance to turn a hit into a miss or a critical hit into a regular hit, and the odds are probably closer to fifty percent.

Fun Fact: You can't get strong defenses to everything. You instead can get a little better defenses to a few things, some of which may rarely come up, or you can get offensive capabilities that generally speaking are applicable no matter what you may face.

In terms of the player saying 'armor doesn't matter', it would be interesting to hear their perspective about why they think that. They very well could be right in certain games or playstyles or campaigns.

[Talakeal]

Maybe give them the trait for free for one campaign?

Funny story, one of my players who preemptively dropped out of my next game had already made a character with this trait. I am going to keep that PC around as a follower and will try letting my players make use of her common sense to see if that helps.


I will note that, if they're asking you why you don't just tell them those things, they may be backhandedly accusing you of railroading with hidden rails. i.e., they're accusing you of having "one true way" to solve the problem, and they're saying they can't read your mind.

This is part of that low trust that you and your players seem to have for each other. I think the only way to address this is to step out of character and have discussions about what's going on in the game a lot more often. If they're floundering, ask them what they think is going on. If they offer a course of action that you think common sense would say is ridiculous, they may well not perceive the situation the same way you do. Ask them what they expect the results of their actions to be, and then discuss with them what their PCs would know about the situation and work out refinements to get the results they're looking for.

Players (imo baselessly) accusing me of railroading is absolutely what they are doing and is absolutely an indicator of the low level of trust in my group.


Possibly, but that's not quite what it sounds like, to me, from what you've described. It sounds like, to me, your players feel like you trick them by having hidden information, or that you've got a single solution and they're playing a guessing game until they figure out what you intended.

I'm not saying they're right, but I am saying that, while power fantasy indulgence is likely a factor, that's not what I think the core of the problem is.

Again, to try to rebuild trust with your players, do a LOT more out of game discussion of what it is they want to achieve. Actively ask them, any time you have any question about the wisdom of their actions, what it is they expect their actions to achieve, and how hard or easy they think it is. Ask them why they think that, if it doesn't immediately make sense to you. Correct any misaprehensions they may have about the situation, the setting, how you think NPCs would reasonably be expected to react, etc.

Try to avoid having "twists" for a while, just until you establish a baseline, and then make sure your twists don't amount to "haha, you thought people liked chocolate, but it turns out this one guy you were counting on liking chocolate hates it and wants to murder you for suggesting he take it!" sorts of things. Twists, when they happen, should be hinted at. Foreshadowed.

But again, spend more at-table time when players are telling you what they want to try making sure you and they agree on what the logical outcome of their actions, should they succeed, would be.

Players getting frustrated and giving up when their first solution doesn't work and players getting mad and lashing out when an encounter negates their strengths / targets their weaknesses are separate but often overlapping issues in my group. Both of them often result in accusations of railroading. The first because the players assume there is only one right solution, the second because they think I am modifying monsters on the fly to counter their tactics.

Also, foreshadowing doesn't actually work. Players are dense at the best of times, and on the rare occasions they do notice a hint they will forget it before the twist is revealed.

[Frogreaver]

Players (imo baselessly) accusing me of railroading is absolutely what they are doing and is absolutely an indicator of the low level of trust in my group.

How do the players know you are not railroading?


Players getting frustrated and giving up when their first solution doesn't work and players getting mad and lashing out when an encounter negates their strengths / targets their weaknesses are separate but often overlapping issues in my group.

I agree those are separate issues. For the first, if the players mistrust you to that degree you have to win their trust back. To do that they need to see some of their first solutions work - and especially not be negated by a bunch of stuff they don't know at the time of the attempt.

For the 2nd, I'm curious how often you use enemies that negate their strengths or target their weaknesses? Are you intentionally choosing such enemies to highlight their weaknesses or are you choosing the enemies they face without bias? I'm betting it's the later judging by how much you want them to learn not to make overly weak characters. If I'm right, then the best course of action is to stop thinking about what enemies they are good or bad against and just design some cool encounters without regard to what or how your players play. Make it clear to them after the session your DM process for creating those encounters. That will increase their trust.


Both of them often result in accusations of railroading. The first because the players assume there is only one right solution, the second because they think I am modifying monsters on the fly to counter their tactics.

Has their first solution ever worked?
It almost sounds like you carefully craft either monsters or encounters to target their weaknesses or negate their strengths. Even if you are intelligent enough to do so the night before D&D game day, that's never going to feel good, unless they are into hard tactical fights - and it sounds like they are more into beer and pretzels.


Also, foreshadowing doesn't actually work. Players are dense at the best of times, and on the rare occasions they do notice a hint they will forget it before the twist is revealed.

When you foreshadow you need to give them 90% of the picture. Players are dense. You also have to give them repeated foreshadows. If they aren't picking up on anything you foreshadow then that's on you, not on them. IMO.

[Talakeal]

How do the players know you are not railroading?

I agree those are separate issues. For the first, if the players mistrust you to that degree you have to win their trust back. To do that they need to see some of their first solutions work - and especially not be negated by a bunch of stuff they don't know at the time of the attempt.

It sounds like you are saying that I need to start railroading in the PCs favor to convince them that I am not railroading. :smallcool:


For the 2nd, I'm curious how often you use enemies that negate their strengths or target their weaknesses? Are you intentionally choosing such enemies to highlight their weaknesses or are you choosing the enemies they face without bias? I'm betting it's the later judging by how much you want them to learn not to make overly weak characters. If I'm right, then the best course of action is to stop thinking about what enemies they are good or bad against and just design some cool encounters without regard to what or how your players play. Make it clear to them after the session your DM process for creating those encounters. That will increase their trust.


The only time I will ever tailor an enemy to target a PC is if it happens in universe, for example if they make a powerful enemy and that enemy devotes resources into getting revenge.

Normally I go with whatever makes sense for the location and then choose something that is either thematic with the overall story line or that I haven't used in a while.

Now, I do scale the monsters power to be as close to the PCs as possible without disrupting verisimilitude, and if the monster is supposed to be feared I will "idiot proof" it and come up with ways it can deal with common tactics to explain why it hasn't already been taken out.


Has their first solution ever worked?

Of course. The vast majority of the time.


When you foreshadow you need to give them 90% of the picture. Players are dense. You also have to give them repeated foreshadows. If they aren't picking up on anything you foreshadow then that's on you, not on them. IMO.

At the point where I could be sure they are picking up on it, it isn't foreshadowing anymore, its just flat out telling them. And even then I can't be sure they won't forget or misinterpret it.

Like, one time in the last game I flat out told them an enemy couldn't be killed by conventional means. I meant that they had to find some nonviolent solution, but the players assumed there was some super secret drop non-conventional dead button that would kill the monster, and thus spent the encounter doing completely random things in hopes of stumbling onto it.

[Segev]

As he said, you have to foreshadow with almost the entire picture. It seems obvious to you because you know everything.

For your nonviolent solutions thing, you need actual clues that point to nonviolence. And what that means. Examples of people who succeeded at it, or a mention of something that does work. IIRC, that one could be choked out when you told us that story, which I wouldn't have gotten from "nonviolent solutions" and would have had way down my list of ideas (if I thought of it at all) with "unconventional means" mentioned.

That isn't "telling them." That's actually pretty cryptic.

[Talakeal]

As he said, you have to foreshadow with almost the entire picture. It seems obvious to you because you know everything.

For your nonviolent solutions thing, you need actual clues that point to nonviolence. And what that means. Examples of people who succeeded at it, or a mention of something that does work. IIRC, that one could be choked out when you told us that story, which I wouldn't have gotten from "nonviolent solutions" and would have had way down my list of ideas (if I thought of it at all) with "unconventional means" mentioned.

That isn't "telling them." That's actually pretty cryptic.

That is telling them a fact. It is not in any way cryptic if you are taking it as such. It is only cryptic if you are conditioned to expect railroading and assuming everything is a hidden imperative from the DM.

If, for example, I learned that monster X was immune to virtually every poison known to science, I would stop trying to poison the monster and would instead use one of the many other weapons at my disposal, I would not try and find the most obscure poison in the world and hope it is one of those few that it isn’t immune to.

Edit: Actually, its even stupider than that, because my players then extrapolated that furthermore it must be killeable by things that are normally harmless. That's like if I told them that an Iron Golem was impervious to most harmful spells (which is a true fact straight out of the monster manual, iirc only lightning spells work) that they then started casting buffs on it because I didn't say it couldn't be harmed by normally helpful spells.

Double edit: Which again, isn't so stupid if you expect that the DM is trying to trick you and running a railroad with one very specific solution in mind.

[Frogreaver]

It sounds like you are saying that I need to start railroading in the PCs favor to convince them that I am not railroading. :smallcool:

I'm actually saying design some challenges that are fairly easy to defeat such that their first solution is very likely to work.

And if railroading once would convince them you aren't railroading I would encourage you to do just that - but i'd say its far too likely to backfire spectacularly badly.


The only time I will ever tailor an enemy to target a PC is if it happens in universe, for example if they make a powerful enemy and that enemy devotes resources into getting revenge.

Normally I go with whatever makes sense for the location and then choose something that is either thematic with the overall story line or that I haven't used in a while.

Now, I do scale the monsters power to be as close to the PCs as possible without disrupting verisimilitude, and if the monster is supposed to be feared I will "idiot proof" it and come up with ways it can deal with common tactics to explain why it hasn't already been taken out.

Personally I would call "scaling monster power to be as close to the PCs as possible" and "idiot proofing" enemies so they can deal with common tactics to be 'tailoring enemies'. But it really doesn't matter what we call it. That's the thing your players have a problem with. That's one of the primary style issues that's causing the distrust.


At the point where I could be sure they are picking up on it, it isn't foreshadowing anymore, its just flat out telling them. And even then I can't be sure they won't forget or misinterpret it.

Like, one time in the last game I flat out told them an enemy couldn't be killed by conventional means. I meant that they had to find some nonviolent solution, but the players assumed there was some super secret drop non-conventional dead button that would kill the monster, and thus spent the encounter doing completely random things in hopes of stumbling onto it.

"Can't be killed" is perhaps one of the worst possible mechanics and "can't be killed by conventional means" is one of the worst possible descriptions of it. That's the same description one could give trolls, right? And Trolls are certainly killable.

The quicker you accept that what you are currently doing for telegraphing isn't actually telegraphing anything to your players the quicker at least this portion of your problems can be resolved.

[Cluedrew]

It sounds like you are saying that I need to start railroading in the PCs favor to convince them that I am not railroading.I just realised that you are using "railroad" much differently than I do. What to you mean by that?

(I would describe it as forcing linearity. Notably under this view no campaign that is as linear as everyone agreed it should be can be a railroad even if it is completely linear.)

[Talakeal]

"Can't be killed" is perhaps one of the worst possible mechanics and "can't be killed by conventional means" is one of the worst possible descriptions of it. That's the same description one could give trolls, right? And Trolls are certainly killable.

The quicker you accept that what you are currently doing for telegraphing isn't actually telegraphing anything to your players the quicker at least this portion of your problems can be resolved.

You know, the Tarrasque can only be killed by a wish spell. Yet, for some reason, despite being "perhaps one of the worst possible mechanics", I have never heard someone complain about it in 30 years, only about how iconic a monster it is and lamentations about how it lacks the mobility to be as terrifying as it truly could be.

Subjective comments about whether or not every problem needs to be solvable with brute force aside, I was not "telegraphing" anything. They directly asked what can kill it, I told them to make a lore test, they passed, and I flat out told them it can't be killed by conventional means. It was a flat out blanket statement of fact. The only things that could kill it are extremely esoteric high end abilities that they didn't have access to. And possibly starvation or petrification, those are grey areas that didn't come up.

They did not ask a follow up question about what could kill it. Instead they assumed I was either trying to trick or railroad them, so they took my statement of fact as me trying to play cryptic word games.


Personally I would call "scaling monster power to be as close to the PCs as possible" and "idiot proofing" enemies so they can deal with common tactics to be 'tailoring enemies'. But it really doesn't matter what we call it. That's the thing your players have a problem with. That's one of the primary style issues that's causing the distrust.

Hold the hell on. You are actually saying that because I try and have enemies within the PC's level range, they trust me LESS?

Like, seriously? You think they would trust me more if I just went "OOPSIE! CR 20 DRAGON AGAINST LEVEL 3 PCS! YOU DIE NOW!"


As for "idiot proofing," let me give an example. Back when I was 12 and first learning the game, my friends and I pit our third level characters against a hydra for fun. We noted that it had a movement of nine, compared to our twelve, so we simply ran away and shot arrows at it until it died without ever getting an attack off. We bragged to our DM about how our third level characters were able to beat a 12HD monster, and he explained that it was only in a white room; if you actually look at the climate terrain, you will notice hydras live in swamp and underground, places where you can't simply shoot it from a hundred yards away and fall back unimpeded, and an important part of DMing is putting encounters in their proper context. Not only could third level PCs take it out under those circumstances, but so could any gaggle of peasants or local militia, so why would it be a terrifying beast of legend guarding valuable treasure worth thousands of XP?

Putting it in an environment that makes sense for the monster and coming up with behaviors that allow it to survive are, in my opinion, a vital part of both game design and creating a plausible world.


I just realised that you are using "railroad" much differently than I do. What to you mean by that?

(I would describe it as forcing linearity. Notably under this view no campaign that is as linear as everyone agreed it should be can be a railroad even if it is completely linear.)

In this context I am saying that I want them to succeed, so I come up with any excuse to allow them to succeed and make whatever plan they first try work.

The opposite of what they think I am doing, coming up with any excuse that will cause them to fail and shooting down whatever plan they try that isn't my "one true solution".

[Telok]

The opposite of what they think I am doing, coming up with any excuse that will cause them to fail and shooting down whatever plan they try that isn't my "one true solution".

Let us guess. The 1 time in 20 that they roll terrible or just blow up their own plan and it fails they complain about railroading. Right?

Could you convince them to take a break and run through a module? Would they learn anything by being shown what an actual railroady adventure is like?

[Frogreaver]

You know, the Tarrasque can only be killed by a wish spell. Yet, for some reason, despite being "perhaps one of the worst possible mechanics", I have never heard someone complain about it in 30 years, only about how iconic a monster it is and lamentations about how it lacks the mobility to be as terrifying as it truly could be.

IMO. This doesn't make sense to me as a reply given the context of anything I said. So I'm just going to move on from it unless you want to elaborate.


Subjective comments about whether or not every problem needs to be solvable with brute force aside, I was not "telegraphing" anything. They directly asked what can kill it, I told them to make a lore test, they passed, and I flat out told them it can't be killed by conventional means. It was a flat out blanket statement of fact. The only things that could kill it are extremely esoteric high end abilities that they didn't have access to. And possibly starvation or petrification, those are grey areas that didn't come up.

They did not ask a follow up question about what could kill it. Instead they assumed I was either trying to trick or railroad them, so they took my statement of fact as me trying to play cryptic word games.


One thing is for certain. If you keep doing the same things you are going to keep having the same results.

A better answer to the lore check would have been - you are not aware of anything that can kill it - or - only esoteric high end abilities on the level of (X) ability they know or abilities stronger than (X) ability they know.


Hold the hell on. You are actually saying that because I try and have enemies within the PC's level range, they trust me LESS?

Like, seriously? You think they would trust me more if I just went "OOPSIE! CR 20 DRAGON AGAINST LEVEL 3 PCS! YOU DIE NOW!"

That's obviously not in any way what I said or meant. You used much stronger language to describe how you create encounters: "Now, I do scale the monsters power to be as close to the PCs as possible without disrupting verisimilitude". All I'm suggesting is you don't try to get the enemies power to be as close to the PCs as possible every time. Get it close sure. But as close as possible is a whole different thing.


As for "idiot proofing," let me give an example. Back when I was 12 and first learning the game, my friends and I pit our third level characters against a hydra for fun. We noted that it had a movement of nine, compared to our twelve, so we simply ran away and shot arrows at it until it died without ever getting an attack off. We bragged to our DM about how our third level characters were able to beat a 12HD monster, and he explained that it was only in a white room; if you actually look at the climate terrain, you will notice hydras live in swamp and underground, places where you can't simply shoot it from a hundred yards away and fall back unimpeded, and an important part of DMing is putting encounters in their proper context. Not only could third level PCs take it out under those circumstances, but so could any gaggle of peasants or local militia, so why would it be a terrifying beast of legend guarding valuable treasure worth thousands of XP?

No issue at all the basic environments like placing a hydra in a swamp.


Putting it in an environment that makes sense for the monster and coming up with behaviors that allow it to survive are, in my opinion, a vital part of both game design and creating a plausible world.

This is more where I'm coming from: "behaviors that allow it to survive" sounds an awful lot like "behaviors that allow it to counter PC tactics". Am I wrong?

I'm also rather curious. The unwinnable encounter they engaged in. Did they get TPK'd as a result of it?

[Telok]

IMO. This doesn't make sense to me as a reply given the context of anything I said. So I'm just going to move on from it unless you want to elaborate.

He was responding to your assertion that "can't be killed except by <thing>" types of creatures are bad thing. Then it seems like you put trolls forward as some sort of good thing when they're the same thing. It's a bit confusing.

See, AD&D had things that were immune to stuff. Some were immune to physical effects, some to magic, etc. Real immunity too, like magic immune stuff ignoring Wall of Force, Grease, Mage Armor, and Wishes directed at them. But there was usually an exception, often something normally non-combat that would work. Clay golems being thrown around and damaged by Move Earth, a middle/high level spell with zero in-combat use.

It sounds like Tak's players are acting like they're facing one of those. If facing an enemy immune to damage and told "it is immune to your attacks", they'd start by assuming it was immune to their weapons and begin hitting it with frying pans or their fists. Then they'd move on to trying to collapse walls on it and seeing if yodeling did damage to it. They'd eventually (assuming continued survival) be trying stuff like yodeling at it or doing underwater basket weaving to see if that was it "secret weakness". They'd never ask or notice that it couldn't physically leave the room it was in, never push it down a bottomless pit, never throw a net on it and tie it up. They're intent on doing hit point damage to win a fight and won't try or ask about any other way.

[Frogreaver]

He was responding to your assertion that "can't be killed except by <thing>" types of creatures are bad thing. Then it seems like you put trolls forward as some sort of good thing when they're the same thing. It's a bit confusing.

I said creatures you can't kill are bad. I didn't say 'creatures you can't kill except by X' are bad. I then went on to explain that describing a creature that 'can't be killed except by some super powerful ability' by the phrase 'unable to be killed by conventional means' doesn't actually help players because even something like a Troll can be described as being unkillable by conventional means. All that statement actually tells players is there's some means by which X can be killed. And since that's the end of the lore dump he gave them on a successful check if I'm a player I'm going to assume that means there's some trick like fire/acid for trolls that can be used to kill this enemy - as I'm thinking that surely if there was only a way to kill it that required a high level ability we don't possess yet that the DM would surely have said something about that in the successful lore check.

But more importantly, in most RPG's putting an enemy the players literally cannot defeat in front of them and not telling them that is almost always going to lead to bad results. That's the real problem with what happened.


See, AD&D had things that were immune to stuff. Some were immune to physical effects, some to magic, etc. Real immunity too, like magic immune stuff ignoring Wall of Force, Grease, Mage Armor, and Wishes directed at them. But there was usually an exception, often something normally non-combat that would work. Clay golems being thrown around and damaged by Move Earth, a middle/high level spell with zero in-combat use.

It sounds like that's what his players were trying and that's what he's calling them dumb for. It got so bad some even tried buff spells on the enemy - probably because they were out of other options.


It sounds like Tak's players are acting like they're facing one of those. If facing an enemy immune to damage and told "it is immune to your attacks", they'd start by assuming it was immune to their weapons and begin hitting it with frying pans or their fists. Then they'd move on to trying to collapse walls on it and seeing if yodeling did damage to it. They'd eventually (assuming continued survival) be trying stuff like yodeling at it or doing underwater basket weaving to see if that was it "secret weakness". They'd never ask or notice that it couldn't physically leave the room it was in, never push it down a bottomless pit, never throw a net on it and tie it up. They're intent on doing hit point damage to win a fight and won't try or ask about any other way.

When reading his full description that's not the impression I get.

[Segev]

That is telling them a fact. It is not in any way cryptic if you are taking it as such. It is only cryptic if you are conditioned to expect railroading and assuming everything is a hidden imperative from the DM.

You brought up this particular example as a response to being told to tell them more - 90% of what's going on - as foreshadowing, and seemed to be indicating that players don't pick up on anything unless you spell the whole thing out for them. You seemed incredulous that they read that factual statement as meaning there was a macguffin or superweapon or something they had to find.

Therefore, if you intended that to be enough for them to come up with the solution you had in mind - and you DID have "nonviolent means" as a solution in mind - then it is cryptic, because it doesn't actually point that way. Yes, "don't fight it" is a solution to it being invincible, but without being told that it's invincible (which you didn't say - you said "traditional means" wouldn't work), even that's speculation.

Talakeal, in this case, I can see why players would feel like you're railroading and not giving enough information. You have one particular solution in mind, and seemingly that's the only solution that can work. That's a hallmark of railroading. You then give them foreshadowing that, despite you believing it is practically telling them everything, very clearly drives them down an incorrect path of thought. This leads to a sense that not only are the rails the only way to advance the plot, but FINDING the rails is going to be harder than finding a one-square-big ship in Battleship. It feels like a guessing game, where you have to guess the DM's intended solution despite your best guesses matching what clues you've been given.

Now, I believe you've indicated they don't go and do more research IC. That's a problem. But how do they do research and not wind up with that being "railroading" as you're defining it? Doing research means they get either the information they need to identify the solution you've thought up, which is railroading because you're telling them what to do (by how you've described it), or it means they get "facts" that are open-ended enough that they need to still guess what the one true solution is in order to get the train advancing down the rails again.

I am sure you have objections to my characterization of this. I am not trying to tell you that that's definitely what you're always doing. I am, however, trying to tell you why your players have low trust. This picture I've just painted, I believe, will sound familiar to you: it's probably a lot of what your players have complained your games are. They perceive them to be this way because you've set them up to either actually be this way, or to appear this way due to how you give information.

When we tell you to spoon-feed them more than you think they need, we're not advising you to railroad or play their characters. We're telling you that they need to be spoon-fed to be shown that they can act on information they gain and find that it's useful. If they complain that the information isn't useful, have the sources they got it from tell them where they might find more. Provide options of buttons to push to get particular kinds of results, and give them those results when they push those buttons.

If there's railroading going on, it's in how you set up your scenarios to have particular solutions in mind. I'm not saying railroading definitely is, but if it is, that's almost certainly where it's hiding from your awareness. Not telling them the solution you have in mind isn't avoiding railroading; it's just making it hard for them to find and follow the rails.

[FrogInATopHat]

I'm trying to help Talakeal bridge the gap. The idea is to look at "why not run what you know he wants" and "why does he want this", to see how much fun Talakeal *can* provide for the existing players.

Why *shouldn't* one evaluate ways to optimize the existing situation?

Some compromise is definitely a good idea most of the time. But see my response to Talakeal immediately below for why I don't think it applies in this instance.

[FrogInATopHat]

Yeah, he is a lot more critical of other people's games than he is of mine, which is why I said that I still think we enjoy the vast majority of time spent gaming together, its just that we both take the times we don't enjoy far too seriously.

"Sometimes the bully doesn't take my lunch money, or at least leaves me with a dollar or two, so we're friends really. At least, compared to everyone else."

Just because this whole situation is slightly less of a shambles than the rest of Chuckles' attitude to gaming doesn't mean it's not a shambles.

You have already said that his attitude is turning new players against you. Boot him for the sake of your future of gaming or both of you will end up being that weird old pair of dudes in the corner of the gaming store who come as a package deal and never get invited to, or to run, home games because people want to ensure that everything happens where it's public and safe and eventually you will both have to give up gaming because the pool of players can't expand beyond the speed at which the stories spread.

[Frogreaver]

You brought up this particular example as a response to being told to tell them more - 90% of what's going on - as foreshadowing, and seemed to be indicating that players don't pick up on anything unless you spell the whole thing out for them. You seemed incredulous that they read that factual statement as meaning there was a macguffin or superweapon or something they had to find.

Therefore, if you intended that to be enough for them to come up with the solution you had in mind - and you DID have "nonviolent means" as a solution in mind - then it is cryptic, because it doesn't actually point that way. Yes, "don't fight it" is a solution to it being invincible, but without being told that it's invincible (which you didn't say - you said "traditional means" wouldn't work), even that's speculation.

Talakeal, in this case, I can see why players would feel like you're railroading and not giving enough information. You have one particular solution in mind, and seemingly that's the only solution that can work. That's a hallmark of railroading. You then give them foreshadowing that, despite you believing it is practically telling them everything, very clearly drives them down an incorrect path of thought. This leads to a sense that not only are the rails the only way to advance the plot, but FINDING the rails is going to be harder than finding a one-square-big ship in Battleship. It feels like a guessing game, where you have to guess the DM's intended solution despite your best guesses matching what clues you've been given.

Now, I believe you've indicated they don't go and do more research IC. That's a problem. But how do they do research and not wind up with that being "railroading" as you're defining it? Doing research means they get either the information they need to identify the solution you've thought up, which is railroading because you're telling them what to do (by how you've described it), or it means they get "facts" that are open-ended enough that they need to still guess what the one true solution is in order to get the train advancing down the rails again.

I am sure you have objections to my characterization of this. I am not trying to tell you that that's definitely what you're always doing. I am, however, trying to tell you why your players have low trust. This picture I've just painted, I believe, will sound familiar to you: it's probably a lot of what your players have complained your games are. They perceive them to be this way because you've set them up to either actually be this way, or to appear this way due to how you give information.

When we tell you to spoon-feed them more than you think they need, we're not advising you to railroad or play their characters. We're telling you that they need to be spoon-fed to be shown that they can act on information they gain and find that it's useful. If they complain that the information isn't useful, have the sources they got it from tell them where they might find more. Provide options of buttons to push to get particular kinds of results, and give them those results when they push those buttons.

If there's railroading going on, it's in how you set up your scenarios to have particular solutions in mind. I'm not saying railroading definitely is, but if it is, that's almost certainly where it's hiding from your awareness. Not telling them the solution you have in mind isn't avoiding railroading; it's just making it hard for them to find and follow the rails.

Yep. That is what I've been trying to point out as well.

I'd also add that there's nothing wrong with some railroadiness as long as your players are happy with it.

One thing this has got me thinking is that an invincible foe and the campaign being about learning the methods and acquiring the specials tools to actually defeat that foe could make a very fun sandbox premise.

[Segev]

Yep. That is what I've been trying to point out as well.

I'd also add that there's nothing wrong with some railroadiness as long as your players are happy with it.

One thing this has got me thinking is that an invincible foe and the campaign being about learning the methods and acquiring the specials tools to actually defeat that foe could make a very fun sandbox premise.

It's not 100% this, but isn't this broadly what Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is based on?

[Willie the Duck]

It's not 100% this, but isn't this broadly what Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is based on?

In very broad strokes, it is the premise of Zelda games in general (although with many of the early games, the amount of actual alternate orders you could do things in was relatively limited).

[kyoryu]

Hold the hell on. You are actually saying that because I try and have enemies within the PC's level range, they trust me LESS?

Like, seriously? You think they would trust me more if I just went "OOPSIE! CR 20 DRAGON AGAINST LEVEL 3 PCS! YOU DIE NOW!"

No. Obviously not.

What he's saying is that if you know you're entering the dragon's lair, and there's a CR 20 dragon, and you get bit, that's maintaining consistency with the world.

If you go into a kobold cave, and there's kobolds there, that's maintaining consistency with the world.

If you go to the dragon's cave, and there's magically CR3 enemies (assuming you're level 3), and you go to the kobold cave and the enemies are CR3, then the players know that their choices don't matter much. And if the players want to go beat up kobolds? So be it. That's their choice. If they want to throw themselves at a dragon? So be it.

Dude, if people seem to be saying something that sounds insane, trust that they're not, and figure out the reasonable interpretation, or ask without the aggressive tone. Everyone in this thread is trying to help.

[Telok]

But more importantly, in most RPG's putting an enemy the players literally cannot defeat in front of them and not telling them that is almost always going to lead to bad results. That's the real problem with what happened.

I didn't hear "literally cannot defeat" from his info example, I heard "your party at this time can't face-sword it to death". He indicated in the post that there were potentially multiple ways to deal with the threat that weren't combat, in addition to some combat ways the party didn't currently possess. It's like a tarasque, if they don't have a wish spell they can't kill it and nobody complains about that.

To me an encounter that can't be defeated in combat is roughly similar to an encounter that can't be completed by non-combat actions. Something that can only be solved by hit point damage is by definition immune to stealth, social abilities, restraint, illusions, charms, trickery, etc. And nobody complains about that. Nobody bashes you for having encounters that can only be solved by hit point damage. But something hit point damage doesn't solve? That's "naughty icky bad DM" stuff for some reason.

I've had a D&D 3.5e mid/high op 10th level party of five almost TPK on a gelatenous cube. It was a enormous one, something like 25' across and 1100+ hit points (long ago, numbers may be inexact). It was also trapped in a room with only wide 10' & 5' high entrances, and had a total move of 20' a round. They obviously IDed it immedately, and went to melee it. Three of them died, including a monk-like super punch build. It sounds like Tak's party acts like that a lot (mine only do so occasionally and claim they had brain farts afterwards).

So he didn't perfectly communicate the entirety of the monster/npc defenses to the players? Apparently they only ever asked a single question, which got an answer. I think everyone understands there are some communications issues in every group sometimes. Most of which could usually be solved by people (players & DMs) asking for clarity or a few more questions. This particular example just sounds like one of those. Someone asks a general question, gets a general answer, makes a wrong assumption and acts on it. In this case there was just no follow-up information asked for and the assumptions were never questioned.

[Quertus]

There is way too much going on in this thread - I can't possibly process all of it, let alone responded to all of it.

But here's a few pieces I did notice:

Toxic environment

There's a lot of toxicity in your games. I don't know what to tell you here. Based on my friends with therapists, you may actually crave and seek out such toxicity. Even if that's not the case, I, personally, don't know how to address the sheer level of toxicity I read from your group, and can only encourage you to go overboard on addressing the parts that I do understand, in the hopes of bringing the overall toxicity down noticeably.

Information: lore, foreshadowing, etc

There is a time to be cryptic. That time is *not* "when your players don't trust you", that time is not now, nor any time soon.

Just give everything as very straight answers: "there is no known way to harm this creature; it is believed to be invulnerable to harm." And even that might not be direct enough.

The big nose Ogre? That falls under… hold on…

The problem occurred when the player who got hit with the sneeze attack accused me of making it up on the spot to screw him. Personally, I felt the big nose clue should not have telegraphed this, but should have made it seem apparent in retrospect (as they say, the perfect riddle seems impossible when you only know the question but obvious once you know the answer). Also note that if I had used a standard D&D style fomorian, with the single eye that inflicts psychic damage, this whole situation would have been significantly worse for the player; not only would they have DIED rather than being knocked down with the melee, but I could have also opened up a Monster Manual when they accused me of making it up on the spot.

So, for the big nosed Ogre, under a GM I trusted, that would be fun. It would be "impossible at the time, obvious (that you didn't make it up on the spot) in retrospect.

But it would be bloody terrible as foreshadowing, as giving useful informing.

You need to throw out whatever part of yourself wants to make "gotcha!" moments like this, and focus on plain, straightforward information dumps. Heck, try just handing party the monster's stats at the start of combat for a while, until you get used to the idea of what clear communication might look like.

Role-playing vs suboptimal play

One need not behave hideously suboptimally in order to roleplay. There's 6 Orcs, and an Ogre. The tactically correct action for my character is to attack an Orc.

If my character is Vengeful, they'll favor attacking the Orc that attacked / damaged them. If they're Protective, they'll favor attacking the Orc that attacked / damaged their allies. If they're OCD, they'll favor… maybe starting at one end, and working their way down.

And they might have other considerations, like whose line of fire they block, how likely who (including themselves) is to be attacked by what based on what their final position is, how far they strayed from / how well they can see someone / something from their new position, etc.

And the things that they say, and/or the descriptions I give, will reflect this - if, perhaps, often only in a "big nosed Ogre" way, that makes those in the know smile knowingly, and leaves those ignorant of their motivations still equally ignorant, rather than in an "in your face" way.

One need not be Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, in order to roleplay in combat. Granted, I prefer less toxic groups, where I can play a Sentient Potted Plant if I want to.

But, yes, we are likely able to view the "it's what my character would do" thread through not entirely dissimilar lenses.

Character competence



I am very curious how you see it.

I already gave you examples: Superman trivially tanking a tank shot or lifting a car, Sherlock trivially noticing clues, Quertus trivially comprehending magic, your medic being the answer to the Divination of the best answer for healing someone.

You are constantly trying to challenge your players. That doesn't make their PCs seem cool. Showcasing what isn't a challenge for their PCs, the things that they can do that others (even in their own party) might well find impossible? That demonstrates how cool they are.

Your examples showed how cool your adventures were (which is your good), but that's a very different thing from how cool the PCs are.

Until you learn to scratch that itch in a productive way, expect your players to continue to want to bully the NPCs.

…what?



Got me. Its really more of a player issue than a character or game design issue. I would imagine the answer has something to do with asking leading questions so the players come to the right decision while thinking it was their idea, but I am not at all skilled in that sort of thing.

No! "The right decision" is of the railroad side of the force (as is most of the rest of that). Do not go down that path, or forever will it dominate your destiny!

Never mind that tricking your players is a really bad way to try to handle trust issues, or that the whole thing is a bad way to address the issues you described.

So you said…

1: There is no objective measure of difficulty - have you tried playing war games, with a 50% chance TPK? Not that I think that that is sufficient.

2: Players remember limits more than capabilities - have you tried end of session recap group bonus XP for cool moments like grappling a dinosaur? Or NPCs addressing them by their publicly-known (thank you Podrick) cool moments?

3: Players (not just my current group, and again myself included) tend to bumble around like idiots when confronted with a mystery or a puzzle - have you considered throwing dozens of really trivial puzzles at them?

Superman



Don't get me wrong, I like Superman when he is well written. IMO the best Superman is in For the Animals where he is metaphorically buried under a stack of letters from people who are asking him for help and the knowledge that even with all of his power he can't save everyone, while the worst is the one whose title I don't remember where Lois Lane is injured too badly for modern medicine to save her, so Superman simply stops time, reads every medical textbook ever written, and then uses his laser vision to become the world's best surgeon. Way to crap on all the effort that real world heroes put into saving lives.

I kinda take the opposite tack here.

From your descriptions, Superman saving Lois represents him becoming motivated to creatively use his abilities, to actually fulfill his potential. Him not doing so previously to save people, him not using his medal skills going forward, nor using his ability to stop time to actually help everyone in "for the animals", OTOH, represents his selfishness and failure.

"It's what you do with what you've got that counts". Only one piece of that saw Superman fulfilling his potential. The rest was him being lazy, selfish, and unheroic.

Railroading



Talakeal, in this case, I can see why players would feel like you're railroading and not giving enough information. You have one particular solution in mind, and seemingly that's the only solution that can work. That's a hallmark of railroading. You then give them foreshadowing that, despite you believing it is practically telling them everything, very clearly drives them down an incorrect path of thought. This leads to a sense that not only are the rails the only way to advance the plot, but FINDING the rails is going to be harder than finding a one-square-big ship in Battleship. It feels like a guessing game, where you have to guess the DM's intended solution despite your best guesses matching what clues you've been given.

Now, I believe you've indicated they don't go and do more research IC. That's a problem. But how do they do research and not wind up with that being "railroading" as you're defining it? Doing research means they get either the information they need to identify the solution you've thought up, which is railroading because you're telling them what to do (by how you've described it), or it means they get "facts" that are open-ended enough that they need to still guess what the one true solution is in order to get the train advancing down the rails again.

I am sure you have objections to my characterization of this. I am not trying to tell you that that's definitely what you're always doing. I am, however, trying to tell you why your players have low trust. This picture I've just painted, I believe, will sound familiar to you: it's probably a lot of what your players have complained your games are. They perceive them to be this way because you've set them up to either actually be this way, or to appear this way due to how you give information.

When we tell you to spoon-feed them more than you think they need, we're not advising you to railroad or play their characters. We're telling you that they need to be spoon-fed to be shown that they can act on information they gain and find that it's useful. If they complain that the information isn't useful, have the sources they got it from tell them where they might find more. Provide options of buttons to push to get particular kinds of results, and give them those results when they push those buttons.

If there's railroading going on, it's in how you set up your scenarios to have particular solutions in mind. I'm not saying railroading definitely is, but if it is, that's almost certainly where it's hiding from your awareness. Not telling them the solution you have in mind isn't avoiding railroading; it's just making it hard for them to find and follow the rails.

I also have issues with your characterization of this - or would, if you hadn't explained it as, "I can see your players seeing things this way".

So… a) how would you encourage Talakeal to describe that encounter; b) what solutions would you want Talakeal to be prepared to accept, to keep his adventure from being a linear railroad; C) how could Talakeal have presented this encounter (other than pre-publishing it) to be able to *demonstrate* to the players that it wasn't a railroad / to build trust?

[Segev]

I also have issues with your characterization of this - or would, if you hadn't explained it as, "I can see your players seeing things this way".

So… a) how would you encourage Talakeal to describe that encounter; b) what solutions would you want Talakeal to be prepared to accept, to keep his adventure from being a linear railroad; C) how could Talakeal have presented this encounter (other than pre-publishing it) to be able to *demonstrate* to the players that it wasn't a railroad / to build trust?

Scenario as I understand the DM knows it: There is a monster who cannot take damage, and must be dealt with by non-violent means. It needs to be sneaked past, negotiated with, tricked, run away from, trapped, or otherwise circumvented.

What the DM needs to convey to the party, at an absolute minimum: There is no known way to damage the monster, and nobody has any clue about any secrets to doing so. It is not unstoppable and not infallible, but you can't damage it.

How the DM response to player actions: If they indicate they are going to research to see if any weaknesses can be discovered, there are three crucial pieces of information to get them.
What its capabilities are
Strength limitations
Speed limitations
Senses it may have and how good it is at using them
How much damage it can do (either explicitly, or by comparison of what it has damaged/destroyed and how easily)
Some ways others have survived encounters with it
Running away, and how they managed it
Did anybody sneak by it? How hard was that? What did they accomplish doing so?
Can it be restrained?
Can it be reasoned with?
OOC, if they keep looking for/talking about "the secret way the DM expects us to hurt it" or anything of the sort, just flat-out tell them: "It can't be damaged. While I don't have any specific intended solution in mind, I do intend you to think of something other than physically killing it as a solution."

Without stepping OOC, the way to present it through foreshadowing is to give examples from point number 2. This paints a picture of means to engage with it productively that the DM is demonstrating works. When players are looking into how to handle it and assuming the DM has a solution in mind (in this case, it seems they expected a fetch quest for The Magic Sword or something), the DM should give them guidance via examples of how it's been dealt with.

Alternatively, if it's brand new and nobody's ever faced it, instead he should make it clear that even if there's a way to damage it, nobody's found any hint of that, yet. Then, reiterate whatever the goal in actually confronting it is, and have some suggestions from other NPCs if needs be.

It is crucial to point out that the solutions to the problem need not involve actually harming the creature, somehow. Doing so OOC, if needs be.

[kyoryu]

Scenario as I understand the DM knows it: There is a monster who cannot take damage, and must be dealt with by non-violent means. It needs to be sneaked past, negotiated with, tricked, run away from, trapped, or otherwise circumvented.

What the DM needs to convey to the party, at an absolute minimum: There is no known way to damage the monster, and nobody has any clue about any secrets to doing so. It is not unstoppable and not infallible, but you can't damage it.

...

Without stepping OOC, the way to present it through foreshadowing is to give examples from point number 2. This paints a picture of means to engage with it productively that the DM is demonstrating works. When players are looking into how to handle it and assuming the DM has a solution in mind (in this case, it seems they expected a fetch quest for The Magic Sword or something), the DM should give them guidance via examples of how it's been dealt with.

Alternatively, if it's brand new and nobody's ever faced it, instead he should make it clear that even if there's a way to damage it, nobody's found any hint of that, yet. Then, reiterate whatever the goal in actually confronting it is, and have some suggestions from other NPCs if needs be.

It is crucial to point out that the solutions to the problem need not involve actually harming the creature, somehow. Doing so OOC, if needs be.

It's worth pointing out that a successful Lore check was made, so the players had the information. At this point step OOC if needed. The GM telling you what your characters know is OOC, and figuring out what the GM means isn't part of the challenge any more. What to do with the information is.

[Talakeal]

Let us guess. The 1 time in 20 that they roll terrible or just blow up their own plan and it fails they complain about railroading. Right?

Could you convince them to take a break and run through a module? Would they learn anything by being shown what an actual railroady adventure is like?

I have tried modules in the past.

The players show active disdain for them and go out of their way to break them.

Although, admittedly, the module designer is often the target of more bitching that I am.

I did get a very back handed compliment once though, they told me they have a standing policy of ignoring any boxed text I read because it isn't as good as what I come up with on my own.


That's obviously not in any way what I said or meant. You used much stronger language to describe how you create encounters: "Now, I do scale the monsters power to be as close to the PCs as possible without disrupting verisimilitude". All I'm suggesting is you don't try to get the enemies power to be as close to the PCs as possible every time. Get it close sure. But as close as possible is a whole different thing.

What I mean here is, to use D&D terms, that the encounter's CR is as close to appropriate for the party's level as I can get it. So, for example, if I want a red dragon fight for a level 8 party, I will probably use a young (CR 7) or a Juvenile (CR 10); again assuming it is plausible. The giant dragon who has been a scourge of the entire region for centuries is probably going to be at least an adult regardless of what level the party is.

Yeah, I can see how if you were taking me way more literally than I meant, with every encounter being precisely evenly matched against the PCs (with the resultant 50% loss rate) that would be way too much.



This is more where I'm coming from: "behaviors that allow it to survive" sounds an awful lot like "behaviors that allow it to counter PC tactics". Am I wrong?

Sort of. But it certainly isn't tailored to counter the specific PCs or their tactics.

Basically, I think about how the monster has existed this long; why it hasn't been killed by the locals or other monsters. I think about what it would do if faced with several common scenarios; attacked at range, attacked from the air, attacked by a more mobile opponent, attacked by an opponent it can't damage, etc.

Then I adjust its environment and its tactics accordingly.

This serves the dual purposes of explaining why the monster is still alive and feared, and prevents stupid in-game scenarios like the level 2 party kiting a hydra around a football field pecking it to death with hundreds of arrows.

It does not, however, negate truly clever or exceptional plans and abilities the party might utilize, nor does it ensure the monster's victory or the PC's death, often times the monster's plan is merely how to escape.

Few fights in my game will ever use up more than 25% of the party's resources or come anywhere close to killing them.



Talakeal, in this case, I can see why players would feel like you're railroading and not giving enough information. You have one particular solution in mind, and seemingly that's the only solution that can work. That's a hallmark of railroading. You then give them foreshadowing that, despite you believing it is practically telling them everything, very clearly drives them down an incorrect path of thought. This leads to a sense that not only are the rails the only way to advance the plot, but FINDING the rails is going to be harder than finding a one-square-big ship in Battleship. It feels like a guessing game, where you have to guess the DM's intended solution despite your best guesses matching what clues you've been given.

Now, I believe you've indicated they don't go and do more research IC. That's a problem. But how do they do research and not wind up with that being "railroading" as you're defining it? Doing research means they get either the information they need to identify the solution you've thought up, which is railroading because you're telling them what to do (by how you've described it), or it means they get "facts" that are open-ended enough that they need to still guess what the one true solution is in order to get the train advancing down the rails again.

IMO, there is a huge difference between an obstacle and a puzzle.

Obstacles have only a few wrong solutions and a plethora of right ones, puzzles have only a few right solutions and a plethora of wrong ones.

Example of an obstacle: A locked door with a difficulty too high for the party so succeed.
Possible Solutions: Cast Knock, Break it down, dig under it, go in the window, blow open a hole in the wall, find someone to let you in, hire a better locksmith, teleport to the other side, find the key, etc. etc.

Example of a puzzle: An indestructible door with an unpickable lock in an anti-magic zone with nobody on the other side that is the only entrance to an indestructible building with impenetrable walls, ceiling, and floors.
Possible Solutions: Find the key.


So, in this case my encounter, was, imo, an obstacle; a monster with unusual immunities.
Things that wouldn't work: HP damage, reasoning with it.
Possible Solutions: Stealth, trickery, tying it up, knocking it out, tranquilizing poison, entangle spells, nets, causing a cave in to trap it, walls of force, polymorphing it into a harmless form, certain esoteric high end magics, starvation, maybe suffocation or petrification, distraction, illusions, outrunning it, getting the artifact out without entering the shrine using magic or contraptions, sleep spells, paralyzing spells, mind control spells, etc.


Again, I flat out told the players they couldn't kill it, but they had it in their heads I was running a puzzle, not an obstacle, and was intentionally playing word games to trick them. So they focused on looking for "non-violent" ways to kill it, assuming it had some special magical weakness that would make it drop dead if they did the right magical thing. Also, for some crazy reason they tried killing it a couple of times using various means before the random stuff in case I was out and out lying to them, ensuring there would be extra guys to fight.


Railroading is similar to a puzzle; its basically the DM coming up with excuses for why perfectly good ideas won't work because they want to force a very specific outcome.


I don't use puzzles, and try to avoid railroads. The closest I come is branching paths, and even then I am generally open to a third option if it is a good one that makes sense in universe.


stuff.

Agreed.


I'm also rather curious. The unwinnable encounter they engaged in. Did they get TPK'd as a result of it?

Ok, buckle in, this is a long one with no clear answer.

First off; unkillable =/= unwinnable.

So I went back and looked at my notes; it was two years ago and my memory was a little fuzzy.

Basically, it was an optional encounter that took place in a shrine where the god of violence was destroyed a millennia before, but it still existed as a vestige and was slowly pulling itself back together. The magic weapon that originally destroyed it was stored in the shrine. When someone enters the shrine, an avatar of violence is spawned, he is a tough (but not exceptionally so) human warrior who attacks in a mindless rage, think fantasy Jason Voorhes. Then, when anyone is killed in the shrine, be they avatars or intruders, the god feeds off the violent death and spawns two more avatars.

Avatars fade away after an hour, and they won't leave the shrine except to chase someone carrying the artifact (but it doesn't have particularly good tracking abilities and will die of thirst pretty soon thereafter if someone manages to give it the slip.)

OOC, this was based on two of Hercules' stories, The Hydra and Strife. Both of which taught him the lesson that sometimes brute force sometimes makes the situation worse instead of better. It was a totally optional "puzzle encounter" trying to encourage the PCs to think outside of the box and teach them that sometimes a non-violent solution works best.

The first time, the party entered, saw the magic item, killed the avatar, two more spawned, they killed them and four spawned, they killed one of them, two more spawned, and then called a retreat.

They went to town, did some research, and rolled a lore test. They asked me how to kill the monster (technically they were killing it and spawning more, but I knew what they meant) and I told them that as the monster was born of violence, it cannot be killed* by violence. Now, I thought this was a plain statement of fact, but my players took it as a cryptic puzzle; in essence I presented an obstacle and they felt I was presenting a puzzle (see above).

*In retrospect I should have said "defeated" not "killed", but I didn't think that there was going to be a miscommunication at the time.

So they went back in, grabbed the artifact, and let the monster beat on them while they did all sorts of random things. Eventually, when they were close to death, I asked them what they were doing, and they explained that they were looking for its "secret weakness" the "nonviolent means to kill it". I explained that they weren't going to find one, and they said it was no problem, they would just "let it kill them and then respawn in town with the loot".

As I explained up thread, the PCs were being super slow and cautious, and I removed player death to try and get them to be a little bit more adventurous, with HP representing morale and exhaustion rather than meat, and running out of HP meaning the party had the fight beaten out of them and could call a retreat with no penalty.

So, I said that will technically work, even though I feel it kind of goes against the spirit of the game, but it is going to get all of their hirelings killed. At which point the players exploded, accused me of trying to trick them, railroad them, and violating the "gentleman's agreement" by not extending the no PC death rule to NPC followers. Lots of screaming, swearing, name calling, and threatening to leave the game.

At that point I backed down and let them have the magic item and all of their followers.


I already gave you examples: Superman trivially tanking a tank shot or lifting a car, Sherlock trivially noticing clues, Quertus trivially comprehending magic, your medic being the answer to the Divination of the best answer for healing someone.

You are constantly trying to challenge your players. That doesn't make their PCs seem cool. Showcasing what isn't a challenge for their PCs, the things that they can do that others (even in their own party) might well find impossible? That demonstrates how cool they are.

Your examples showed how cool your adventures were (which is your good), but that's a very different thing from how cool the PCs are.

Until you learn to scratch that itch in a productive way, expect your players to continue to want to bully the NPCs.

But my players do stuff like that constantly.

Again, you may have some distorted perception of me, but I am not one of those GMs who scales the world to the players; they pass dozens, perhaps hundreds, of normal rolls each session that are trivial for them but would be very difficult if not impossible for ordinary people.

I guess I could do more to narratively call attention to it, but like I said it happens so often that would get tiresome and drowned out; normally I save the "ego stroking" to exceptional rolls or ideas.

[icefractal]

Not to insult your players unduly, but are they adults? I don't recall if this was specified, and if not it explains a lot.

Because, really, this ...

At which point the players exploded, accused me of trying to trick them, railroad them, and violating the "gentleman's agreement" by not extending the no PC death rule to NPC followers. Lots of screaming, swearing, name calling, and threatening to leave the game.

The fact that you did cave about this and weren't willing to have people who swear at and insult you leave your game leads to a hypothesis though -

You are much more invested in running a game than your players are in playing one. They're willing to skip playing if they can't (mostly) get their way, you aren't. And they know this, and they take advantage of it.

YMMV, but the next time someone threatened to leave the game, I'd let them. Be casual about it, mention that they're free to re-join later if they want to, but if it's "their way or the highway", then the door is right there. Of course there is the possibility that your entire batch of players is like this, and thus no game until a new group can be established; you'll have to decide whether that's worth the risk.

Also, you should consider the possibility that your oldest, most-contentious player is "poisoning the well" and bringing new players over to this way of thinking. Is he the one who usually escalates things to threats? Does he encourage other players to complain about things they weren't otherwise?

[Quertus]

Not to insult your players unduly, but are they adults? I don't recall if this was specified, and if not it explains a lot.

Oh, man, that was funny. While, yes, there definitely seems to be a lack of emotional maturity at times, iirc they're all supposedly adults.


I have tried modules in the past.

The players show active disdain for them and go out of their way to break them.

Although, admittedly, the module designer is often the target of more bitching that I am.

I did get a very back handed compliment once though, they told me they have a standing policy of ignoring any boxed text I read because it isn't as good as what I come up with on my own.

OK, improvement. That's good.

What did they still complain about regarding your style of running the game?

And, why not, (if you recall,) what complaints did they level against what module? Because *that's* something we can actually evaluate. (Hint, hint)


What I mean here is, to use D&D terms, that the encounter's CR is as close to appropriate for the party's level as I can get it. So, for example, if I want a red dragon fight for a level 8 party, I will probably use a young (CR 7) or a Juvenile (CR 10); again assuming it is plausible. The giant dragon who has been a scourge of the entire region for centuries is probably going to be at least an adult regardless of what level the party is.

Yeah, I can see how if you were taking me way more literally than I meant, with every encounter being precisely evenly matched against the PCs (with the resultant 50% loss rate) that would be way too much.

But even this isn't exactly good for a sandbox. It removes (some of) their agency to choose their difficulty.

And also discourages them from gathering intel.

So, don't do that. Place everything in the map at static DC, and don't have the gorge be as big or magical as it needs to be in order to be a challenge when they get there, let it be as trivial or impossible as it really is.

Same for the monsters.


Sort of. But it certainly isn't tailored to counter the specific PCs or their tactics.

Basically, I think about how the monster has existed this long; why it hasn't been killed by the locals or other monsters. I think about what it would do if faced with several common scenarios; attacked at range, attacked from the air, attacked by a more mobile opponent, attacked by an opponent it can't damage, etc.

Then I adjust its environment and its tactics accordingly.

This serves the dual purposes of explaining why the monster is still alive and feared, and prevents stupid in-game scenarios like the level 2 party kiting a hydra around a football field pecking it to death with hundreds of arrows.

It does not, however, negate truly clever or exceptional plans and abilities the party might utilize, nor does it ensure the monster's victory or the PC's death, often times the monster's plan is merely how to escape.

Fwiw, I'm on your side on this one.

But to get players' trust, you may need to pre-publish your monsters, before the party exists.


But my players do stuff like that constantly.

Again, you may have some distorted perception of me,

When I asked what your Players were able to accomplish to make their PCs seem cool, you seemed confused by the idea.

So, again, can you give good examples of things that the PCs have done that make them seem cool?


but I am not one of those GMs who scales the world to the players; they pass dozens, perhaps hundreds, of normal rolls each session that are trivial for them but would be very difficult if not impossible for ordinary people.

And difficult for each other? Superman isn't understanding magic while Sherlock is tanking a tank shot, Quertus sewing someone's organs back in, and your medic noticing the impossible clue, is he?

And they "pass dozens, perhaps hundreds, of normal rolls each session"? That doesn't sound special. How often do they roll to balance on a cloud? To see a phenomenon like a bleeding wall, understand the underlying magic theory, and counteract or reproduce it? Know from the way the Avatar of Hate looks at their weapons that it is invulnerable? Have NPCs interactions with them *obviously* (to them, not just to you) be based on their past deeds (including famous actions, but also personal past interactions with the PCs) - even something as simple as, "from rumors in the tavern, you learn that the princess you rescued just gave birth to twins", or "I've got an idea for those floating rocks… if you have any left."?

And there's lots more issues, like, "are these rolls required by 'the story', or are they initiated by their own personal freedom?". How much freedom they feel could impact their desire to showcase their coolness at your NPCs' expense.


"I guess I could do more to narratively call attention to it, but like I said it happens so often that would get tiresome and drowned out; normally I save the "ego stroking" to exceptional rolls or ideas.

"Quertus, make a spellcraft check, DC 20."

”… 117.”

How many of their PCs' actions look like that, and what do you do to make them seem special?

[Cluedrew]

To build off what Quertus said, do they know emotionally/intuitively know that they are stronger than normal people? Probably doesn't matter for them but still intellectually knowing that you have a higher stat than an average character doesn't amount for much when you don't show it.

To Talakeal: This just occurred to me. Have you ever asked your players why they are interested in a pen-and-paper role-playing game instead of just playing a computer game? Which honestly seems to be what they are after.

[Talakeal]

You are much more invested in running a game than your players are in playing one. They're willing to skip playing if they can't (mostly) get their way, you aren't. And they know this, and they take advantage of it.

Absolutely true.

Decent players are hard to come by. This is especially true when you generally run homebrew systems and are relatively introverted and not at a university or the like where you can regularly meet new people.

We are all in our mid to late 30s.




OK, improvement. That's good.

What did they still complain about regarding your style of running the game?

And, why not, (if you recall,) what complaints did they level against what module? Because *that's* something we can actually evaluate. (Hint, hint)


Its been a long while, but iirc generally the same stuff; monsters are over balanced, railroading, puzzles with only a single solution.

Of course, when its a module I usually agree with them.



But even this isn't exactly good for a sandbox. It removes (some of) their agency to choose their difficulty.

And also discourages them from gathering intel.

So, don't do that. Place everything in the map at static DC, and don't have the gorge be as big or magical as it needs to be in order to be a challenge when they get there, let it be as trivial or impossible as it really is.

Same for the monsters.


No, I don't do it in a sandbox, that's the other thread. I don't normally run sandboxes though.




When I asked what your Players were able to accomplish to make their PCs seem cool, you seemed confused by the idea.

So, again, can you give good examples of things that the PCs have done that make them seem cool?



And difficult for each other? Superman isn't understanding magic while Sherlock is tanking a tank shot, Quertus sewing someone's organs back in, and your medic noticing the impossible clue, is he?

And they "pass dozens, perhaps hundreds, of normal rolls each session"? That doesn't sound special. How often do they roll to balance on a cloud? To see a phenomenon like a bleeding wall, understand the underlying magic theory, and counteract or reproduce it? Know from the way the Avatar of Hate looks at their weapons that it is invulnerable? Have NPCs interactions with them *obviously* (to them, not just to you) be based on their past deeds (including famous actions, but also personal past interactions with the PCs) - even something as simple as, "from rumors in the tavern, you learn that the princess you rescued just gave birth to twins", or "I've got an idea for those floating rocks… if you have any left."?

And there's lots more issues, like, "are these rolls required by 'the story', or are they initiated by their own personal freedom?". How much freedom they feel could impact their desire to showcase their coolness at your NPCs' expense.



"Quertus, make a spellcraft check, DC 20."

”… 117.”

How many of their PCs' actions look like that, and what do you do to make them seem special?

I am still kind of confused by the idea.

Generally, there is at least one PC at the table who can hit the hardest difficulties in the game, and does so frequently, while succeeding at merely challenging difficulties 100% of the time. And no, the other PCs generally wouldn't have a chance at pulling that sort of thing off.

People don't generally balance on clouds or roll 117 because the game is a lot more grounded, both in mechanics and fiction, than epic level D&D, we generally stick to action movie levels of competence rather than tall tale stuff.

They routinely do pretty incredible stuff; the knight took hits that would incapacitate a battle tank, the artificer created all sorts of crazy gizmos, the swordswoman fought 100 elite soldiers by herself and regularly one-shot demigods, the rogue could sneak unseen through an actively watched room or pickpocket something from someone's hands while they were using it, the face could stare down a t-rex and bluff her way into impossible situations which she had no knowledge about beforehand (like the time she talked the party onto an enemy sky-pirate ship by claiming to be the official zeppelin inspector), the medic performed microsurgery with only her fingernails and some plant fiber, the monk could run up smooth walls, perform triple jumps, and run down a wire in an ice storm, and the sorceress routinely cast spells that would normally be the domain of the gods.

Is that the sort of thing you mean?

[Quertus]

Its been a long while, but iirc generally the same stuff; monsters are over balanced, railroading, puzzles with only a single solution.

Of course, when its a module I usually agree with them.

Well, yeah. Most modules are terrible. But, if they're gonna complain anyway, running a module sounds less stressful, IMO.

The downside is, your description makes their complaints sound sane.


No, I don't do it in a sandbox, that's the other thread. I don't normally run sandboxes though.

Fair enough. My mistake.


I am still kind of confused by the idea.

Generally, there is at least one PC at the table who can hit the hardest difficulties in the game, and does so frequently, while succeeding at merely challenging difficulties 100% of the time. And no, the other PCs generally wouldn't have a chance at pulling that sort of thing off.

People don't generally balance on clouds or roll 117 because the game is a lot more grounded, both in mechanics and fiction, than epic level D&D, we generally stick to action movie levels of competence rather than tall tale stuff.

They routinely do pretty incredible stuff; the knight took hits that would incapacitate a battle tank, the artificer created all sorts of crazy gizmos, the swordswoman fought 100 elite soldiers by herself and regularly one-shot demigods, the rogue could sneak unseen through an actively watched room or pickpocket something from someone's hands while they were using it, the face could stare down a t-rex and bluff her way into impossible situations which she had no knowledge about beforehand (like the time she talked the party onto an enemy sky-pirate ship by claiming to be the official zeppelin inspector), the medic performed microsurgery with only her fingernails and some plant fiber, the monk could run up smooth walls, perform triple jumps, and run down a wire in an ice storm, and the sorceress routinely cast spells that would normally be the domain of the gods.

Is that the sort of thing you mean?

Superman tanked a tank, then lifted it up? Yeah, I want him on my team!

Sherlock knows why you came to visit him from the clues visible on your person? Yeah, I want him on my team!

Quertus understands magic at a level beyond the gods of magic, and nonchalantly admits that he has invented spells to guide the formation of magical phenomena? Yeah, I want him on my team!

the face could stare down a t-rex and talked the party onto an enemy sky-pirate ship by claiming to be the official zeppelin inspector? Yeah, I want her on my team!

the swordswoman fought 100 elite soldiers by herself and regularly one-shot demigods? Yeah, I want her on my team!

You tell these stories, and the PCs sound cool, sound like someone you'd want on your team.

(EDIT: normally, I think, I'd word it more as, "remember the time <face> stared down a T-Rex? (That was awesome!)")

Although you have a bit of a different idea of what "grounded" means than I do, I think. :smallamused:

[Frogreaver]

Well, yeah. Most modules are terrible. But, if they're gonna complain anyway, running a module sounds less stressful, IMO.

The downside is, your description makes their complaints sound sane.



Fair enough. My mistake.



Superman tanked a tank, then lifted it up? Yeah, I want him on my team!

Sherlock knows why you came to visit him from the clues visible on your person? Yeah, I want him on my team!

Quertus understands magic at a level beyond the gods of magic, and nonchalantly admits that he has invented spells to guide the formation of magical phenomena? Yeah, I want him on my team!

the face could stare down a t-rex and talked the party onto an enemy sky-pirate ship by claiming to be the official zeppelin inspector? Yeah, I want her on my team!

the swordswoman fought 100 elite soldiers by herself and regularly one-shot demigods? Yeah, I want her on my team!

You tell these stories, and the PCs sound cool, sound like someone you'd want on your team.

(EDIT: normally, I think, I'd word it more as, "remember the time <face> stared down a T-Rex? (That was awesome!)")

Although you have a bit of a different idea of what "grounded" means than I do, I think. :smallamused:

It's very well possible the players want those kinds of things in the game and don't know how to say it, but they very well could not either. That kind of over the top fictional 'power' seems a bit orthogonal to the discussion. Though if the OP hasn't checked with his players if they would like stuff like that better - it's possible most everything that's occurring could just be about mismatched expectations about how 'grounded' they want the game.

[Talakeal]

The downside is, your description makes their complaints sound sane..

Lot's of modules ARE super rail-roady and full of puzzles that require you to be a mind reader to solve.

For example, in a Dragonlance module I ran, the only way to convince one of the NPCs to do something which is vital to move the plot along is to ask her "What would your father do in your place?". The module says that any other argument is unaffected and stalls out the module.

In a Delta Green adventure I ran through recently, the only way to get the "good ending" is to smash a mirror with an elder sign. Now, smashing the mirror is a possible outcome, although it is rather limited and not likely to be something every group thinks of, but you have to do it with an elder sign. The thing is, there is no clue to this, there is no elder sign in the adventure, and there is nothing in the adventure that even gives the PCs a clue that elder signs exist, let alone what they do. They literally have to get an elder sign from another module, bring it with them, and then use it unprompted in a very specific way. That's nuts.


The problem in my group is that I don't generally use "one solution" puzzles, but my players, for whatever reason, are convinced I do. So if their first solution to an obstacle doesn't work, they just get into a defeatist mindset and assume that one has to be a mind-reader to proceed.





Although you have a bit of a different idea of what "grounded" means than I do, I think. :smallamused:

More grounded than high level D&D. As I said, I tend to use "Hollywood" levels of competence.

My games tend to look like Van Helsing (the one with Hugh Jackman, not the anime), Willow, or Princess Mononoke. Top end characters are like "badass normal" superheroes; Batman, Captain America, Hawkeye, Richard Dragon, etc.

Facing a hundred men is the type of feat The Bride or Cyrano DE Bergerac are said to have done, although perhaps it is exaggerated. Many real world military victories claim to have inflicted a hundred casualties for everyone that they took, although it isn't a solo effort. Its something that is wildly implausible, but theoretically possible.

Truly competent people in real life are pretty damn impressive, and can do things that most people wouldn't believe if they saw them, and these are real people, not fantasy heroes.

And, of course, as I mention in every "guy at the gym / martial vs. melee" thread; high level characters do have magic items boosting their abilities, and it is sometimes hard to say where innate competence ends and the magic item begins. For example, the Knight in my party can easily tank cannon balls or attacks from titanic monsters, but probably not without her enchanted adamant armor and cloak of regeneration; without them she is merely Rasputin tough, not quite Wolverine levels.

[Angelalex242]

Interesting. I've always built my Paladins with defense in mind. It's why I prefer Oath of the Ancients, and my VHuman starts life with Heavy Armor Mastery.


I have smites for offense.

[Quertus]

Lot's of modules ARE super rail-roady and full of puzzles that require you to be a mind reader to solve.

For example, [horrible modules]

The problem in my group is that I don't generally use "one solution" puzzles, but my players, for whatever reason, are convinced I do. So if their first solution to an obstacle doesn't work, they just get into a defeatist mindset and assume that one has to be a mind-reader to proceed.

Yeah, those modules you described were pretty bad. :smallannoyed:

However, what keeps you from bringing a sealed envelope with a copy of the puzzle & solutions you've pre-accepted, and handing it to players who complain wrongly that you use "one solution" puzzles?

How many times do you need to hit your players with a (mental) clue-by-four before they level reasonable complaints / stop leveling unreasonable complaints?


It's very well possible the players want those kinds of things in the game and don't know how to say it, but they very well could not either. That kind of over the top fictional 'power' seems a bit orthogonal to the discussion. Though if the OP hasn't checked with his players if they would like stuff like that better - it's possible most everything that's occurring could just be about mismatched expectations about how 'grounded' they want the game.


More grounded than high level D&D. As I said, I tend to use "Hollywood" levels of competence.

My games tend to look like Van Helsing (the one with Hugh Jackman, not the anime), Willow, or Princess Mononoke. Top end characters are like "badass normal" superheroes; Batman, Captain America, Hawkeye, Richard Dragon, etc.

Facing a hundred men is the type of feat The Bride or Cyrano DE Bergerac are said to have done, although perhaps it is exaggerated. Many real world military victories claim to have inflicted a hundred casualties for everyone that they took, although it isn't a solo effort. Its something that is wildly implausible, but theoretically possible.

Truly competent people in real life are pretty damn impressive, and can do things that most people wouldn't believe if they saw them, and these are real people, not fantasy heroes.

And, of course, as I mention in every "guy at the gym / martial vs. melee" thread; high level characters do have magic items boosting their abilities, and it is sometimes hard to say where innate competence ends and the magic item begins. For example, the Knight in my party can easily tank cannon balls or attacks from titanic monsters, but probably not without her enchanted adamant armor and cloak of regeneration; without them she is merely Rasputin tough, not quite Wolverine levels.

This is of interest to me, as it may be instructive regarding some of the disconnect with your players.

So, to me, many of the stories of how cool your PCs are are much more "over the top" / much less "grounded" than any game I've played outside superheroic / divinity games.

Which, to be clear, is not in any way me dissing your style or anything - i have zero cares for how "grounded" a game is (beyond "not completely" - I like magic, dagnabbit :smallwink:).

No, I am merely saying that from a communication / stylistic perspective, those stories sound much less grounded / make your PCs sound much more fantastic than those of games I've been in, to me.

Combat prowess? You say the swordswoman fought 100 elite soldiers by herself and regularly one-shot demigods? Best I remember is solo a half-dozen minotaurs, unarmed, or going "punch for punch" with a god of war (and losing) before the Epic 3e Monk who chain reaction exploded Balors before they got to go.

Social skills? You say the face could stare down a t-rex and talked the party onto an enemy sky-pirate ship by claiming to be the official zeppelin inspector? Best I can remember is accidentally bluffing a Balor (or setting someone up to accidentally bluff a Balor) when a Paladin stepped up to make it look like the Protection from Evil spell was lasting forever -> making us apart far more powerful than we actually were, or seducing Mystra.

"Thief skills"? You say the rogue could sneak unseen through an actively watched room or pickpocket something from someone's hands while they were using it? Best I can remember is team thief sneaking in to a boss fight, and trying to loot everything on their person without engaging (and even that was more of a white room discussion).

Healing? You say the medic performed microsurgery with only her fingernails and some plant fiber? I've seen a few characters perform CPR (and, in a superhero setting, one used selective phasing to remove a bullet).

Just from the stories of their exploits / accomplishments, I'd say that the PCs in your games sound more talented and more fantastical than those in mine.

Do you hold that your stories are more grounded than mine? If so, are we using the word differently?

But then there's some suspicious failures.

Magic? You say the sorceress routinely cast spells that would normally be the domain of the gods? That says little, if the most powerful god can barely conjure a tepid bowl of weak broth. And nothing about *how* they could accomplish such, to make that feel special.

And there's nothing about your PCs seeming smart, or knowledgeable, or wise, or cunning. The Paladin in my example was… "cunninger than the Abyss". :smallwink: Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, doesn't adventure for treasure or XP, but for knowledge, and it shows, both in his approach, and the sheer amount of knowledge and skill that he has accumulated.

You've told us a lot about how they seem foolish - and a lot of that is on you, with communication issues, and how you choose to describe things.

So, since you're clearly doing a great job of making their PCs seem awesome (at least to us/me, if not to the players) in other vectors, perhaps if you focus on the mindset of making their PCs seem awesome in more cerebral pursuits, your players will stop trying to feel good about their PCs at the NPCs expense.

Worth a shot, right?

[Talakeal]

However, what keeps you from bringing a sealed envelope with a copy of the puzzle & solutions you've pre-accepted, and handing it to players who complain wrongly that you use "one solution" puzzles?

They find an excuse why each of these ideas is something that no reasonable person would ever come up with and say I developed a situation where only a mind reader could get a right solution.

For example, none of the list of 20+ things that could have bypassed avatar of violence encounter were considered by them, and they had an excuse why each was unrealistic, even though my elderly non-gamer parents were able to come up with a number of them when I called them up to ask.


This is of interest to me, as it may be instructive regarding some of the disconnect with your players.

So, to me, many of the stories of how cool your PCs are are much more "over the top" / much less "grounded" than any game I've played outside superheroic / divinity games.

Which, to be clear, is not in any way me dissing your style or anything - i have zero cares for how "grounded" a game is (beyond "not completely" - I like magic, dagnabbit :smallwink:).

No, I am merely saying that from a communication / stylistic perspective, those stories sound much less grounded / make your PCs sound much more fantastic than those of games I've been in, to me.

Combat prowess? You say the swordswoman fought 100 elite soldiers by herself and regularly one-shot demigods? Best I remember is solo a half-dozen minotaurs, unarmed, or going "punch for punch" with a god of war (and losing) before the Epic 3e Monk who chain reaction exploded Balors before they got to go.

Social skills? You say the face could stare down a t-rex and talked the party onto an enemy sky-pirate ship by claiming to be the official zeppelin inspector? Best I can remember is accidentally bluffing a Balor (or setting someone up to accidentally bluff a Balor) when a Paladin stepped up to make it look like the Protection from Evil spell was lasting forever -> making us apart far more powerful than we actually were, or seducing Mystra.

"Thief skills"? You say the rogue could sneak unseen through an actively watched room or pickpocket something from someone's hands while they were using it? Best I can remember is team thief sneaking in to a boss fight, and trying to loot everything on their person without engaging (and even that was more of a white room discussion).

Healing? You say the medic performed microsurgery with only her fingernails and some plant fiber? I've seen a few characters perform CPR (and, in a superhero setting, one used selective phasing to remove a bullet).

Just from the stories of their exploits / accomplishments, I'd say that the PCs in your games sound more talented and more fantastical than those in mine.

Do you hold that your stories are more grounded than mine? If so, are we using the word differently?

Do keep in mind these are high powered specialists assisted by magic items rolling well in their fields. These are not normal occurrences.

But, most of them are merely implausible, not outright impossible, most people just have a very narrow understanding of what truly gifted people can do in the real world.

To use a personal example, my druggie friends has such a high tolerance for drugs that when he finally got arrested for having a psychotic breakdown after doing massive quantities of every drug you have ever heard of and some you haven't, every single person who reviewed his case (police, lawyers, judges) said that the toxicology report wouldn't stand up in court because if it were accurate he would be dead many times over.

Also, one shotting demi-gods is actually a lot more possible in my system than most games because damage is actually lethal rather than D&D style big ole' bag of HP.



Magic? You say the sorceress routinely cast spells that would normally be the domain of the gods? That says little, if the most powerful god can barely conjure a tepid bowl of weak broth. And nothing about *how* they could accomplish such, to make that feel special.

Resurrecting the dead without body, creating artifacts, creating new worlds, making life from nothing, destroying souls, traveling time, destroying entire cities, altering the laws of physics (at least locally / temporarily), becoming omniscient over a certain area, that sort of thing.

OOC, he can do it because he invested more points in magic than anyone else. In character, well he doesn't really care about backstory, but in the case of his mystic-theurge wizard type, it was because she was a living spell cast by the creator goddess before her death to preserve the balance of magic in the universe, and in the case of her pyromancer sorceress it is because she was the grand-daughter of a legendary hero who bound a fallen fire elemental prince to himself to gain superhuman strength.



And there's nothing about your PCs seeming smart, or knowledgeable, or wise, or cunning. The Paladin in my example was… "cunninger than the Abyss". :smallwink: Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, doesn't adventure for treasure or XP, but for knowledge, and it shows, both in his approach, and the sheer amount of knowledge and skill that he has accumulated.

You've told us a lot about how they seem foolish - and a lot of that is on you, with communication issues, and how you choose to describe things.

So, since you're clearly doing a great job of making their PCs seem awesome (at least to us/me, if not to the players) in other vectors, perhaps if you focus on the mindset of making their PCs seem awesome in more cerebral pursuits, your players will stop trying to feel good about their PCs at the NPCs expense.

Worth a shot, right?

The problem is that cleverness and wisdom are generally supplied by the player, not the character, and I don't know how to change that as a GM without actually railroading people.

And I don't know if its just my players, although I think there is a certain amount of learned / willful helplessness going on; when I am playing in a game I feel much stupider than I do in real life as well.

[Segev]

The problem is that cleverness and wisdom are generally supplied by the player, not the character, and I don't know how to change that as a GM without actually railroading people.

And I don't know if its just my players, although I think there is a certain amount of learned / willful helplessness going on; when I am playing in a game I feel much stupider than I do in real life as well.

I think that is because as a player, the DM is your only window on the world. You can't see what your character sees, and the DM, if he's trying to "not railroad" by not "giving too much information and common sense advice," is leaving you feeling "stupid" because your character SHOULD know things instinctively that you have a hard time remembering due to not being him, not growing up him, and not seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. what he senses.

When your players come up with an idea that you feel obviously shouldn't work, tell them things their characters know that would make that clear. And do so while explaining that they know why their solution wouldn't work. Then, work with them to see if they can come up with ways to overcome the problems you've outlined. One major issue some GMs have is that they will say "that can't possibly work," and then see the players trying to get at WHY it wouldn't work as the players trying to game the system.

Well, yes, they are. They are literally trying to play the game, which is the system, so they're gaming the system exactly how D&D is supposed to be gamed.

Don't be afraid to offer some solutions that might work. If you feel you're "railroading" them, so be it, but the key here is to clearly explain what it is their PCs know (and you've already revealed to their characters) that would point to this solution working. If they insist "no reasonable person" would come up with that, well, there's no much you can do, other than ask them why not.

Chances are, they'll have some unhelpful snark and defensiveness, given how you've described them, but buried in that will be pieces of information they'll indicate - consciously or not - that they didn't have. The core "unfairness" of a DM having a railroady, unrealistic solution tends to be that the DM somehow failed to give the players relevant information that would have made the solution something they could think of.

One common thread I keep seeing is that you feel that if you give them more information, your thought-of solutions become so obvious that you're railroading them into them. Abandon that fear. Tell them more and more as they get confused. Don't be afraid that you'll give it away. There will come a point where they figure it out, and it's "given away" then anyway. The more you have to give, the more you know you probably aren't as obvious as you think you are. This isn't a problem, as long as you keep giving more and more information until they can "Get it."

[BRC]

Re: Puzzles and the Avatar of Violence.

I am not in general a huge fan of Puzzles. I like your definition of a "Puzzle" vs a more general "Obstacle".

I find that in these cases, the thing you need to be sure of is that you have the PC's goals properly oriented.

If I'm reading the scenario right, the goal is "Get the Treasure from the Shrine", not "Destroy the Avatar of Violence".

The PC's seem to have been operating under the assumption that the goal was to Destroy the Avatar.

Now, my guess is that the following bit had not properly been conveyed

Avatars fade away after an hour, and they won't leave the shrine except to chase someone carrying the artifact (but it doesn't have particularly good tracking abilities and will die of thirst pretty soon thereafter if someone manages to give it the slip.)

Specifically, your parenthetical there.

The goal is to Steal The Treasure, this can be done in many ways (Bypassing or tricking the Avatar, grabbing it and just tanking hits while you run out of the shrine and escape). Unless it is specifically called out that the Avatar is bad at tracking and will die of thirst, and that escaping from the shrine and losing it in the wilderness is an option, your PC's are going to assume that just grabbing it and running means dealing with a constant stream of angry avatars of violence, since for something with the description "Avatar of Violence defending a shrine", requiring food/water, and having bad tracking are not inherently weaknesses that come to mind.

A lot of this comes down to unspoken assumptions. You described the avatar as follows :

he is a tough (but not exceptionally so) human warrior who attacks in a mindless rage

To YOU, that means he has all the weaknesses of a mindless berserker human.

To your Players, they're more likely to see the Avatar as some sort of spirit or construct that takes the form of a human, and exists to guard this treasure. So ideas like "escape into the wilderness where he can't track us and he dies of thirst because he cannot feed himself" are not going to come to mind unless you make it clear that, for all intents and purposes, this Avatar is just some really angry dude.

The bigger thing is that, once your PCs got it into their head that their goal was to Destroy the Avatar, they were never going to find an acceptable solution, since the core of YOUR goal for this puzzle was that the Avatar cannot be destroyed (Well it can, but it just spawns more), and that THEIR goal was to Get The Treasure.

Funnily enough, this is kind of the opposite of the classic "Outsmarted the GM" story, which is usually the GM thinking up an encounter around a specific goal (Destroy the Avatar), and the Players realizing that the True Goal (Get the Treasure) Could be met through other means, and doing that.


The final thing to think about is the "Shiny Thing" phenomenon.

I was once in a game at a convention, the GM described "A big glowing rock that looked like a brain with some froglike entities on it". The Rock was not quite IN the way to our destination, but it was pretty close.

We spent at least half an hour real time staring at the rock, trying to find ways around it, trying to prepare in case it was a trap, or the frogs attacked us.

Later, the GM mentioned "Why did you spend so much time at the Rock", it was just a cool setpiece, the Frogs would only have responded if we attacked.

The answer is, we were shown something big and shiny, and we assumed that the point was to Engage With The Interesting Thing.


The Avatar of Violence is a cool puzzle, but it's a puzzle that is solved by Not Engaging With It. The solution is to distract or endure the guard, grab the loot, and escape, and, like with the glowing brain-shaped frog-rock, players are generally going to discard any solution that does not involve Engaging With The Shiny Thing, because the assumption is that you, the GM, put the Shiny Thing there so they will engage with it, and will have blocked, or otherwise punish, any solutions that simply bypass it without engaging.


How I would have changed your "Avatar of Violence" Scenario. The Avatar Cannot Leave The Shrine. Don't say "The avatar CAN leave the shrine, but will only do so to pursue the treasure, and it's bad at tracking and will die of thirst". The Avatar Cannot Leave the Shrine. If you get the shiny out of the shrine, you're home free.

When they retreat, the Avatars chase them, it's a mindless berserker, but cannot cross the threshold of the shrine. Make it clear that the Avatar Cannot Leave The Shrine, since that's the intended solution.


Edit: This is why I don't like puzzles, especially magical puzzles that introduce some new ruleset. It's dependent on what the players can Deduce, and figuring out how hard it is to deduce something is difficult.

Even puzzles firmly grounded in reality can be frustrating, since one person's assumptions about the obvious will differ from another.

The only way to really make something like this work IMO is to either make sure the PCs can see the vague outline of the solution (Get the Thing, Get out alive), or make a big list of every fact and make sure each one is communicated somewhere.

Like

1) If you enter the Shrine, an Avatar spawns.
2) If you kill an Avatar within the shrine, Two more spawn.
3) The Avatar cannot be reasoned with,
4) The Avatars vanish after one hour.
5) The Avatars will only leave the shrine to chase the treasure.
6) The Avatars are, in all ways, identical to an ordinary human warrior, albeit a skilled one with no goals except to protect the treasure and inflict harm on trespassers in the shrine.

And even then I'm probably missing something crucial. You then have to hand the PC's each of these pieces, because you never know what bit you thought was obvious, but is actually key to the whole thing.

[Quertus]

They find an excuse why each of these ideas is something that no reasonable person would ever come up with and say I developed a situation where only a mind reader could get a right solution.

For example, none of the list of 20+ things that could have bypassed avatar of violence encounter were considered by them, and they had an excuse why each was unrealistic, even though my elderly non-gamer parents were able to come up with a number of them when I called them up to ask.

I'm just going to leave you with the outline of my response. See if, after you read my response below, you can see what I was going to say.

Dismissive

5-year-old

Rule of Three

see what I did there?


The problem is that cleverness and wisdom are generally supplied by the player, not the character, and I don't know how to change that as a GM without actually railroading people.

And I don't know if its just my players, although I think there is a certain amount of learned / willful helplessness going on; when I am playing in a game I feel much stupider than I do in real life as well.

Well,



I think that is because as a player, the DM is your only window on the world. You can't see what your character sees, and the DM, if he's trying to "not railroad" by not "giving too much information and common sense advice," is leaving you feeling "stupid" because your character SHOULD know things instinctively that you have a hard time remembering due to not being him, not growing up him, and not seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. what he senses.

This pretty much says it all.

However, you do seem to game in Bizarro World, so let's see what I can add.

when communicating with the players

Don't give them the sneezing Ogre - don't give them your platonic idea of a riddle that is "obvious" in retrospect, but impossible at the time.

Don't give them the Avatar of Hate, that is filled with flowery language that is easy to misinterpret into a red herring of "ooh, shiny!".

Give them direct, "your characters would know that won't work because" statements, like, "your characters wouldn't wait for nightfall, to navigate by the stars, because they would know that there are no stars on this world", or "your characters have no concept of 'tide' because it doesn't happen in this world - there is no moon, as was mentioned in session 0".

Watch your tone - don't come off as, "we covered this, what's wrong with you"; aim closer to… "I am prepared to listen to why you didn't hear this, but hoping you'll say 'oh, yeah, I remember that now¹'." And, if they do say, "that's not what I heard" - even if they word it as, "how the **** was I supposed to get that from 'big nose' / 'cannot be killed by violence' / whatever", actually listen to their complaint. Understand that they are probably (hopefully) the worst people in the world at communicating *why* they dislike something, but look forward to the puzzle of self-improvement that they are providing you (yes, there is probably only one right answer, and lots of wrong answers, and the right answer almost certainly isn't the obvious one from what they've said, but hey, the reward for the heroic is self-improvement, the bestest reward of all).

¹ "Oh, I remember that now" is a highly underutilized super power. Entire threads could be dedicated to the power of the recap, to finding ways of reminding players of facts that their characters learned, to training players to recognize and remember the important bits.

when giving information to the characters

Follow the Rule of Three, giving them anything they need to know on at least three separate occasions (yes, this is more railroady than sandbox): "legends say Thor, Conan, Wolverine, Superman, and Talakeal's swordswoman all fought the Avatar of Hate ineffectively as a distraction until the nearby town was evacuated", "supposedly, Bilbo of the Shire was able to best it", "violence can but cause hate to multiply. So great was his hate that it is believed that nothing can vanquish it."

Note how these are not dead ends: the party can research any of these legends, can speak with any of the living involved, or even Speak with Dead. They might travel to the Shire, or perform Divinations of, "is there anything that can vanquish it?". If they feel that they want more information¹.

Do not word it as a railroaded single solution: "legends say Thor, Conan, Wolverine, Superman, and Talakeal's swordswoman all fought the Avatar of Hate ineffectively as a distraction while Bilbo snuck in and stole The One Ring".

¹ setting people up to be able to accurately judge whether or not they know enough is… a big topic, and outside the scope of this thread.

[Segev]

Note how these are not dead ends: the party can research any of these legends, can speak with any of the living involved, or even Speak with Dead. They might travel to the Shire, or perform Divinations of, "is there anything that can vanquish it?". If they feel that they want more information¹.

Importantly, if the players do take steps to look into something, don't be afraid to have good enough research just give them at least one workable solution. I suspect, from how you've described them, that if you GAVE them at least one solution that would work, unless they really really hated the solution, they wouldn't complain about "Railroading" nearly so much. Your players, from your description, are LOOKING for the rails, because they don't trust that anything but a nice, safe train ride will get them to a conclusion and fear that wandering from the rails, even in ignorance, will get them killed by the invisible invincible T-Rex waiting in every direction but the one the rails are leading down.

Try giving them literally all of the information needed for at least one solution (preferably, lay out two or three) when they do even a modicum of research, and see if that improves the table's level of trust. And, of course, if they come up with something based on these solutions that is different, don't be afraid to let it work.

Further, when they seem to be floundering or acting like they think they have a solution when they're wrong (e.g. when they start looking for the macguffin that the DM surely must have for hurting the invincible avatar), give them suggestions of places they could go to get more information. Then, when they go looking for that information, give it to them. Don't be cryptic. Don't be afraid of "railroading" but "telling them too much."

[Talakeal]

Ok, serious question.

IMO, it is not the GM's job to give players solutions, merely give information. "The monster is weak to fire" is ok, but "You need to put down your swords and start swinging your torches" is not.

Do you think if I gave in and started giving players solutions that would actually help them build trust, or do you think it would make the problem worse by further convincing them that there is only one right solution and make them even less willing to think on their own?

Also, Quertus, a lot of your examples require excellent communication on the part of the PLAYERS as well. I don't know what they are thinking, and they rarely tell me. In your navigate by the stars example, the players wouldn't say "we wait until nightfall to navigate by the stars," they would say "We wait until nightfall." Then only once nightfall had come do they ask to navigate by the stars and I tell them that there aren't any stars.


good stuff


I think having unable to leave the shrine makes for a very different encounter.

First, it makes it trivially easy, as the shrine was only about twenty yards across.

Second, it makes it obviously a smash and grab scenario, rather than one teaching them about ways to subdue an enemy using non-lethal means.



1) If you enter the Shrine, an Avatar spawns.
2) If you kill an Avatar within the shrine, Two more spawn.
3) The Avatar cannot be reasoned with,
4) The Avatars vanish after one hour.
5) The Avatars will only leave the shrine to chase the treasure.
6) The Avatars are, in all ways, identical to an ordinary human warrior, albeit a skilled one with no goals except to protect the treasure and inflict harm on trespassers in the shrine.


They had all of this information.

The information they didn't have that tripped them up was "There is not some super secret way to kill it for good."

[Segev]

Ok, serious question.

IMO, it is not the GM's job to give players solutions, merely give information. "The monster is weak to fire" is ok, but "You need to put down your swords and start swinging your torches" is not.If I were the DM and telling the players, "the monster is weak to fire," was leading to them still, for some reason, attacking with their swords, I would probably ask them, "Why aren't you using fire damage?"

Assuming their answer to that question in some way indicated they believed they didn't have any fire damage, I would point out to them that they have torches. And possibly fireball spells, or what-have-you.

In a recent session of a Pathfinder game I'm in, we were confronted by a ghost and we were having a devil of a time with it because we don't actually have much in the way of magical weapons or spells that deal with the incorporeal or undead in a hostile way. The DM reminded us that we have multiple vials of oil of ghost touch. I know none of us felt "railroaded" nor like there was "one true answer" to the fight; if we'd had other means, we would have used them, but this was a key-shaped object for a lock-shaped hole.

Now, in the "you have torches" example vs. the creature vulnerable to fire, the players may have some very legitimate reasons they didn't think to use them. A big one I can think of is that they may believe it is vulnerable to fire, but not so much so that whatever vulnerability it has would make the torches do more damage than their own weapons, with which they have special abilities and bigger dice and more bonuses, or what-have-you. They key thing about reminding them they have torches is that this encourages the players to explain WHY they haven't thought to use them, and you can see if they are right, or if they are operating under a misconception.

If, for instance, the reason torches would be better is because not only is the monster vulnerable to fire, but it also is invulnerable to weapons, you have just learned that the players didn't know it was invulnerable to weapons.


Do you think if I gave in and started giving players solutions that would actually help them build trust, or do you think it would make the problem worse by further convincing them that there is only one right solution and make them even less willing to think on their own?I think, if you start pointing out the key-shaped objects that fit the lock-shaped holes, they will at the least feel like you're reminding them of tools they have. I think that, if you lay out multiple possibilities that you believe their characters SHOULD be able to perceive, especially if you give them as "rewards" for them trying to research the thing in question, they will feel they have choices, at the very least, that they trust will work.

By laying out multiple possibilities, you can also invite them to extrapolate or elaborate on them, and you can allow them to work or explain what it is they're missing about something if it won't.

So, yes, I think it will build trust, but you have to start by letting them feel that you're at least sharing the "true answer" with them. Let them feel confident they CAN overcome something and don't have to read your mind to do it. Give them multiple options, so they at least can choose WHICH one they work with, and, again, be open to others that would work (not that I doubt your word that you would be).


Also, Quertus, a lot of your examples require excellent communication on the part of the PLAYERS as well. I don't know what they are thinking, and they rarely tell me. In your navigate by the stars example, the players wouldn't say "we wait until nightfall to navigate by the stars," they would say "We wait until nightfall." Then only once nightfall had come do they ask to navigate by the stars and I tell them that there aren't any stars.As DM, sometimes it's your job to to elicit that communication.

"What do you hope to achieve by waiting for nightfall?" is a question you can and possibly should ask, especially if you see a major problem with them doing so that you believe their characters would also see. Once again: YOU are their window into the setting. They perceive NOTHING you don't tell them, unless they imagine it (and then they're likely wrong). If you don't understand why they're doing something, and you think it serves no purpose, you should ask them what it is they are planning. You can then tell them anything they would know would make that not work, or you can even tell them if there's something obvious they are not acting upon. Make sure, even if they tell you, "We're navigating by the stars," and you think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, you also point out whatever problems waiting for nightfall may make happen. Listen to them when they tell you why they're doing something. If it doesn't make sense to you, ask them why they think that's a good idea.

Yes, this risks them huffing that you're throwing up obstacles in the way because it's not "the one way your railroad requires," but they're going to do that, anyway, so don't let fear of that stop you from asking them what it is they expect to achieve.


I think having unable to leave the shrine makes for a very different encounter.

First, it makes it trivially easy, as the shrine was only about twenty yards across.Easily fixed by making it unable to leave "the shrine grounds." Maybe "the hill the shrine is on," or "the sacred ground surrounding the shrine." Or just making the shrine bigger.

Think Japanese Shinto shrines - the whole hill is usually a sacred ground to the shrine, and multiple buildings are on said ground, even if the shrine itself is only a few yards across, or even is just an outdoor altar with maybe a small roof to shelter it from the rain. Or churches where the entire grounds are sacred.


Second, it makes it obviously a smash and grab scenario, rather than one teaching them about ways to subdue an enemy using non-lethal means.If your goal is to teach them something, tell them what the lesson is about. Don't make it something they have to guess or deduce. You don't teach somebody algebra by telling them about the adventures of number-ninjas who disguise themselves as letters and need to follow specific rules to figure out what they really are. You tell somebody you're teaching them algebra, then you teach it to them.

Even if you're doing it via a game, or the like.

In video games, when a new mechanic is being taught, they spell out how to use it. They work you through multiple ways to use it, holding your hand most of the way, before showing you puzzles specifically designed to be solved with it. You know, even if you don't know the solutions and techniques that will be needed, that the puzzle is asking you to figure out ways to use the new thing.

This could be as easy as making the Shrine of Violence a local test for aspiring monks or policemen or something, where they demonstrate their ability to nonlethally subdue or overcome a foe as a rite of passage, because they can't cheat it by killing it.


They had all of this information.

The information they didn't have that tripped them up was "There is not some super secret way to kill it for good."That's important information to give them. If they keep searching, eventually just tell them, "you're not finding it because it doesn't exist." It's nicer if you can get that across without stepping OOC, but ultimately, if they're metagaming it, you need to, as well, because as long as they think, "You can't find any information on that," just means they haven't guessed the right button to push or rolled a high enough result on an investigation roll, you're going to have to metagame it to tell them, "Look, if there was something to find, you'd have found it. you've exhausted all the means of looking. There is, to your characters' knowledge, no way to kill it permanently that's ever been discovered, and there are no hints they're finding that might tell them how to do so. The reason for this is that there IS no way to kill it. That's not the nature of the trial it represents in this world."

[kyoryu]

All the stuff on communication.



So, yes, I think it will build trust, but you have to start by letting them feel that you're at least sharing the "true answer" with them. Let them feel confident they CAN overcome something and don't have to read your mind to do it. Give them multiple options, so they at least can choose WHICH one they work with, and, again, be open to others that would work (not that I doubt your word that you would be).

Give them examples of possible solutions, as well as the possible downsides. It's easy to couch this as "your character would know."

"Yeah, so you're going to go into the Forbidden Fortress of Forbiddenness? Cool. You could try to find a back way in, which would take longer, and the General might have escaped by then. If you go in fighting, you know that's going to be difficult, but there's usually a skeleton crew at night, so that'd probably make more sense anyway. There might be other ways, though, but those are the ones that come to mind to me!"

[Talakeal]

Easily fixed by making it unable to leave "the shrine grounds." Maybe "the hill the shrine is on," or "the sacred ground surrounding the shrine." Or just making the shrine bigger.

Think Japanese Shinto shrines - the whole hill is usually a sacred ground to the shrine, and multiple buildings are on said ground, even if the shrine itself is only a few yards across, or even is just an outdoor altar with maybe a small roof to shelter it from the rain. Or churches where the entire grounds are sacred.

If your goal is to teach them something, tell them what the lesson is about. Don't make it something they have to guess or deduce. You don't teach somebody algebra by telling them about the adventures of number-ninjas who disguise themselves as letters and need to follow specific rules to figure out what they really are. You tell somebody you're teaching them algebra, then you teach it to them.

The encounter was not created in a vacuum though, but as part of the world.

In a previous game, set ~1300 earlier, the PCs defeated the demon god of violence; which had possessed a mobile fortress. The dungeon happened to be the half buried ruins of that fortress, which had since been taken over by a crazy doomsday cult. The artifact in question was the same one the previous PCs had used to kill the demon, and when the cultists found its remains but also found that it was protected by the vestige of said demon, they converted it into a shrine and then left it alone.

[Segev]

The encounter was not created in a vacuum though, but as part of the world.

In a previous game, set ~1300 earlier, the PCs defeated the demon god of violence; which had possessed a mobile fortress. The dungeon happened to be the half buried ruins of that fortress, which had since been taken over by a crazy doomsday cult. The artifact in question was the same one the previous PCs had used to kill the demon, and when the cultists found its remains but also found that it was protected by the vestige of said demon, they converted it into a shrine and then left it alone.

Then you need to indicate that the avatar stops chasing after a certain point. Yes, that point is "when it dies of hunger and thirst," but merely saying something like, "Get three days' travel from it," or otherwise make it clear that it WILL stop chasing them. You can tell them the avatar eventually dies of hunger and thirst, or how long it takes, or anything similar, but you need to get that info across, because expecting them to guess it is expecting them to read your mind.

[Talakeal]

Then you need to indicate that the avatar stops chasing after a certain point. Yes, that point is "when it dies of hunger and thirst," but merely saying something like, "Get three days' travel from it," or otherwise make it clear that it WILL stop chasing them. You can tell them the avatar eventually dies of hunger and thirst, or how long it takes, or anything similar, but you need to get that info across, because expecting them to guess it is expecting them to read your mind.

Again though, I was not setting up a smash and grab operation (indeed as this was one room in a larger dungeon, that would have been very counterproductive), and their characters have no way of knowing this information.

[Telok]

and their characters have no way of knowing this information.

Something I've taken to doing (might help, might not) is trying to consider tradition, history, story, and myth.

"Traditionally entities like this are bound to the area they originally died in."
"Historically the ice trolls of the north are not afraid of fire because they are too cold to burn."
"Stories abound of vampires, but they don't agree about crossing runnin water or a dependence on graves or coffins. They do all have the blood lust thing."
"The myths of the Dagon cult are all doomsday prophecies that the cultists always try to fulfill."

Generally as a way to impart more background information that the characters would/could normally know, but that the players might not remember or be thinking about. I grew up reading about the old greco/roman myths, if I were going into a ruin from that time I'd be thinking of those. Now I don't have any scholarly depth in those myths, I don't retell them as stories to anyone, but I remember them. It's not enough knowledge that would warrant a "proficiency" or anything, but it's background cultural information.

Edit: had to put someone down for a nap...
Now, I don't tell the players their characters know these things. I leave that up to the players. I just add info that people of the area/culture would know.

Of course a newly discovered land (well, new to the PCs) they won't have that and will have to researxh or ask a local.

[BRC]

Again though, I was not setting up a smash and grab operation (indeed as this was one room in a larger dungeon, that would have been very counterproductive), and their characters have no way of knowing this information.

I mean, it sounds a bit like you were, at least as I understand the scenario.

Fighting the Avatar was not a solution, all solutions were based around bypassing or otherwise preventing the avatar from stopping you from grabbing the treasure and getting out.

Unless part of the idea was that they would stall the Avatar, (Say, they push it into a closet and barricade the door), then escape, and once it battered it's way out it would chase them, and part of the challenge was surviving the Avatar chasing them until it died of thirst.


Which, "Survive being pursued by the avatar until it dies of thirst" is a fine part of the challenge, but it's one that needs to be very carefully communicated that doing so is both possible, and part of the plan.


You say "The PC's had all the information", but was it made very clear to them that the Avatar would eventually die of thirst, and that avoiding it until it did would end the threat? (it sounds like not, you specifically say they had no way to know that information. And yet, it was crucial to the solution)

Because that's not something that I think the players would reach on their own. Unless explicitly told that was part of the solution, I think most people would assume either 1) It doesn't need to eat, drink, or sleep. It's a mystic avatar of the god of violence. OR 2) It has enough wherewithal and self-preservation to forage for food and water while it tracks us down. From what I hear from your description, that's the very specific end-goal you had in mind for a successful solution. The Avatar dies of thirst trying to get the treasure back.

The intent of the challenge here was "Subdue an implacable enemy using nonlethal means". You didn't care WHAT methods the PC's used to subdue it, you just wanted them to do so.

You presented this by having the Avatar be unkillable. Okay, good start, but we run into the communication issue.

1) The difference between "Cannot be killed" and "Cannot Die". Your end-goal had the Avatar dying, just not from violence. Since literally every version of a successful solution to this puzzle involves the Avatar dying of thirst, you need to make it very clear that is something that can happen. The avatar doesn't just look like a dude, it IS a dude.

Because you're dealing with Magic Rules, you need to make the endstate very clear (Get out, avoid the Avatar until it dies of thirst), since the PC's have no way of knowing what Rules are in place, and it's very easy to make assumptions, especially since your chosen answer involves Not Engaging, which is something most players are going to dismiss out of hand.


2) You DIDN'T want a Smash-and-Grab, you wanted them to specifically Subdue the Avatar nonlethally. There was a Lesson you were trying to teach them, a very specific skill you wanted to test.

That's fine, but it's relevant information, because it means YOU had a criteria for a Successful Solution that they did not have.

If the goal is 'Keep the Avatar alive and get out with the Thing', you need to be building your scenario beyond "Unkillable enemy", while there are certainly parties that will deal with an unkillable foe by trying to incapacitate it nonlethally, unless that's clearly part of the solution, they'll just assume they're going to spend the rest of their lives chased by unkillable avatars of violence.



With that in mind, I would do something like this:

The Relic is held in the hand of the dead god, the skeletal hand is basically indestructible.

You can cause the hand to open by saying "Lord of the Battlefield, I come to you in the heat of conflict, grant me your treasure!" or some similar incantation. This will start the process of the Hand opening very, very slowly, it will take about 10 minutes for the hand to open to the point where you can retrieve the relic.

The incantation only works while the Avatar is alive. If you kill it, it takes an hour to respawn, and the hand will close up again. It is therefore impossible to retrieve the artifact while the Avatar is alive.
The above can all be learned through research or experimentation.

The Solution is therefore to start the Incantation, and then using your means of choice, incapacitate but do not kill, the Avatar while the Hand opens up.

Obviously, nobody has gotten that far yet, so there's no good way for the PC's to communicate that the Avatar won't chase them forever after that point, but you've already established that the Avatar IS killable, you just can't get the relic while it's dead, it's a lot less scary. Once the PC's have the relic, they can kill it, get an hour's head start, and maybe kill it again if it catches up.

Especially if the Avatar "Respawns" at a specific space in the Shrine, making it clear that, if they leave, get chased, and kill the Avatar, it won't respawn at it's old body and resume the chase.


You had in mind that you wanted them to nonlethally incapacitate a foe. So you presented them with an unkillable foe. They had it in mind that you wanted them to Kill an Unkillable Foe.


This is where the difference between a "Puzzle" and an "Obstacle" comes in, and also why I hate Puzzles in RPGs, especially puzzles based on magical rules. There always comes a point where you need to guess what the GM is thinking, which is a frustrating experience on both sides.
(This is not to be confused with a Mystery. A Mystery is a complete scenario, you can find evidence, and verify your guesses by finding more evidence to support them, until eventually you confirm your conclusion. Mysteries can be frustrating in of themself, but unlike Puzzles, getting Closer to the solution can help a lot, and reinforce that you're getting closer. With a Puzzle, you're just guessing at rules and being told you're wrong.).


An Obstacle on the other hand is about challenging a specific skillset. You can make it clear what the general shape of the solution is supposed to be (Incapacitate the Avatar nonlethally), and leave the actual IMPLEMENTATION to the PC's as a creative and strategic exercise. Since that was your goal, lean into it. Make the challenge about incapacitating the Avatar, not about figuring out that you need to incapacitate the Avatar.

[Frogreaver]

Again though, I was not setting up a smash and grab operation (indeed as this was one room in a larger dungeon, that would have been very counterproductive), and their characters have no way of knowing this information.

You are the DM. You decide what information their characters can know and can't know.

[Talakeal]

You are the DM. You decide what information their characters can know and can't know.

Right, but maintaining a consistent world is also part of my job, and just throwing information at the players without any justification kind of breaks that.

I mean, if I really want them to know something, I could come up with increasingly contrived ways for their characters to learn it, but I need to be aware that they need that information. Honestly, I didn't even consider the possibility of just grabbing the treasure and running without first doing something to subdue the big scary guy or guys beating on them with a giant cleaver.


Lot's of stuff

The thing is, I never even considered the possibility of them just running away.

The avatar dematerializes if left alone in the shrine for ~an hour.

I fully expected them to find some way to incapacitate it (a sleep spell, knocking it out, trying it up, etc.), grabbing the treasure, leaving, and then it just fading away.

The whole protracted chase thing where it follows them across the desert was kind of improv on my part as I legitimately didn't think about it when planning the encounter. Honestly, the dying of thirst thing probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and now that I think about it more, it probably would have simply faded away after an hour away from the shrine regardless of circumstances, although its really rather irrelevant, if they hadn't given it the slip after an hour it would have long since caught and killed them in most every scenario I can see playing out.


Your scenario probably works significantly better as a game experience, but it is a bit contrived to be something that actually exists in the world without being very intentionally set up as a test of some sort.

[BRC]

Right, but maintaining a consistent world is also part of my job, and just throwing information at the players without any justification kind of breaks that.

I mean, if I really want them to know something, I could come up with increasingly contrived ways for their characters to learn it, but I need to be aware that they need that information. Honestly, I didn't even consider the possibility of just grabbing the treasure and running without first doing something to subdue the big scary guy or guys beating on them with a giant cleaver.



The thing is, I never even considered the possibility of them just running away.

The avatar dematerializes if left alone in the shrine for ~an hour.

I fully expected them to find some way to incapacitate it (a sleep spell, knocking it out, trying it up, etc.), grabbing the treasure, leaving, and then it just fading away.

The whole protracted chase thing where it follows them across the desert was kind of improv on my part as I legitimately didn't think about it when planning the encounter. Honestly, the dying of thirst thing probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and now that I think about it more, it probably would have simply faded away after an hour away from the shrine regardless of circumstances, although its really rather irrelevant, if they hadn't given it the slip after an hour it would have long since caught and killed them in most every scenario I can see playing out.


So now you need to establish that they could leave the thing alone for an hour and it would fade away and not chase them. Specifically, you need to figure out a way to communicate that, even if the treasure is missing, it will fade away if it doesn't have anybody to fight for an hour.

Since, once again, that's relevant to the solution.

One way to do this might be to have the Avatar visible disintegrating and fading away (Albeit slowly), and everytime it attacks or is attacked, it pulls itself back together and becomes more Real. Establishing that, if this thing doesn't have something to Fight, it will go away.





Your scenario probably works significantly better as a game experience, but it is a bit contrived to be something that actually exists in the world without being very intentionally set up as a test of some sort.

And that's why I hate puzzles! When you come up with something like "Hrmm, I want to test some specific skill on the part of my PCs or Players", you either need to create something that in-universe exists to test that skill (The Monks of the Helping Hand constructed this temple to ensure that initiates could follow their oaths of not killing opponents) OR You need to come up with something really contrived to cut off all solutions that don't involve the skill you're trying to test, and then you need to communicate that somehow.

Because, unless you're trying to test something, situations don't tend to neatly and naturally fall into convenient Aptitude Tests For Some Specific Skill Or Approach.

Doors are not made to only open by solving some elaborate riddle, they're made to open for somebody who has a key!

And Magic makes things so much more difficult, because once you start at the point of "it's Magic", all the rules are thrown out the window, and you're reliant on assumptions and archetypes.

Why did your players try to find the "Nonviolent" way to kill the Avatar of Violence? Because you've entered the realm of myth and legend, and there are far more stories about "The Monster Could Not Be Killed, But Is Killed Anyway" than ones where the unkillable monster is just kind of knocked on the head and left alone and that was fine. Macbeth is killed by somebody birthed by C-section. Tolkien thought that was dumb, and had the Witch-King killed by a Woman.

There's a kind of reverse occams-razor that comes into play with things like this, which is basically impossible to predict. "Knock it on the head and everything will be fine" is boring compared to "Find out how to kill it without violence". And what the Players are REALLY trying to guess here is "What story is our GM trying to tell here?", and they'll assume "The more interesting one".



Edit: you said something about "I give the players information, not Solutions"

Which is the problem with puzzles.

In a Mystery, the Solution is how they get the Information. In a Puzzle, Information IS the solution. It's impossible to know you've given them all the information they need to solve the puzzle without also giving them the solution.

Because there's no universal standard for "Obvious", merely a standard for "Stated".


It's why I stay away from out-of-character puzzles. I do plenty of in-character puzzles, where skill rolls can represent the characters figuring something out, and those rolls can get bonuses based on things the players say out of character.


Video Games get away with Puzzles by strictly limiting the available inputs, as well as providing clear visiuals. But in an RPG, where the limitations are whatever you can think of, you don't have that luxury.

[Talakeal]

So now you need to establish that they could leave the thing alone for an hour and it would fade away and not chase them. Specifically, you need to figure out a way to communicate that, even if the treasure is missing, it will fade away if it doesn't have anybody to fight for an hour.

The party already knew this.


Why did your players try to find the "Nonviolent" way to kill the Avatar of Violence? Because you've entered the realm of myth and legend, and there are far more stories about "The Monster Could Not Be Killed, But Is Killed Anyway" than ones where the unkillable monster is just kind of knocked on the head and left alone and that was fine. Macbeth is killed by somebody birthed by C-section. Tolkien thought that was dumb, and had the Witch-King killed by a Woman.

Do note though, there was an actual effort to subvert the prophecy there.

In my case, the players just did a bunch of random stuff that wouldn't kill anyone, and tried killing it in a bunch of very violent ways.

Someone born of C-section logically follows from not being born, killed by a woman logically follows from not killed by a man.

Dropping over dead when you smashed the mirror in his room, being stabbed through the chest with a magic spear, being burned alive, or dying from songs don't logically follow from can't be killed by violent means.


There's a kind of reverse occams-razor that comes into play with things like this, which is basically impossible to predict. "Knock it on the head and everything will be fine" is boring compared to "Find out how to kill it without violence". And what the Players are REALLY trying to guess here is "What story is our GM trying to tell here?", and they'll assume "The more interesting one".

This is absolutely correct. Although, most players probably wouldn't say it in such a positive way; they would phrase it as "The GM is trying to railroad us into playing his story in the way that he thinks is more interesting."

[BRC]

The party already knew this.


You may have told them the facts, but we're in archetype and story, so certain conclusions might not follow from those facts without being reinforced.

As the Players see it, the Avatar guards the Treasure.
"The avatar will cease to exist after an hour if left alone" does not necessarily follow that the avatar will STILL fade away if the treasure is taken.
Yes, the facts you stated "The avatar will fade away after an hour" does include the case where the Treasure has been taken, but in the context of the avatar as a guardian of the treasure, a lot of people are going to assume that doesn't apply.

Because "The avatar fades away after an hour", to most people, means "If it has nothing to do, the Avatar will hang around for an hour before fading away", which isn't what you said, but is what people are going to hear in the context of the Avatar as a guardian of the treasure. Their archetypical ideas of magical treasure guardians are going to overlay over the actual words your saying.

This is a tricky bit of communication to bridge, especially since you don't know if it's relevant. Ways to help are to be clear about the relevant rules and triggers.

"The Avatar will fade away an hour after the last person has died or left the shrine." is a bit more clear (Establishing that the relevant timing is somebody being in the shrine, and cutting off the assumption that the avatar fades away if it has nothing to do for an hour), but even that isn't guaranteed, because if they're locked onto the idea that they need to slay the Avatar somehow, they might just hear the "Unless you've stolen the treasure" anyway.


Do note though, there was an actual effort to subvert the prophecy there.

In my case, the players just did a bunch of random stuff that wouldn't kill anyone, and tried killing it in a bunch of very violent ways.

Someone born of C-section logically follows from not being born, killed by a woman logically follows from not killed by a man.

Dropping over dead when you smashed the mirror in his room, being stabbed through the chest with a magic spear, being burned alive, or dying from songs don't logically follow from can't be killed by violent means.

Which is what your players were looking for, but seeing as there was nothing presented that fit their criteria, they were trying stuff at more or less random in the hopes of accidentally stumbling onto an acceptable answer.

Any Puzzle (Which, this wasn't really a puzzle, but they saw it as one) involves guessing at the answer. With no way to inform their guess, they were guessing anyway.


This is absolutely correct. Although, most players probably wouldn't say it in such a positive way; they would phrase it as "The GM is trying to railroad us into playing his story in the way that he thinks is more interesting."

Magical Puzzles are a weird situation when it comes to railroading.

My line with Railroading is "Railroading isn't putting up walls, it's building a room with only one door".

But, sometimes rooms only have one door. And a Magical Puzzle is about as close as you can get to a "Realistic" one-doored room.

"There is an indestructible magical box that will only open if you say the name and favorite ice cream flavor of the ancient wizard who created it".

A single, very specific solution is inherent in the scenario, the players have leeway in how they reach that solution, but they're locked in.

One of the big signs of railroading is when the GM has to intervene to stop you going off the tracks. Impenetrable stone walls that resist magic that digs tunnels through stone walls, supposedly mercenary minions who can't be bribed or convinced to do anything but fight to the death trying to kill the PCs, random high-level NPCs showing up to say "Don't do that, go do the other thing", ect.

With a Puzzle, the GM doesn't have to do that. But besides the immersion breaking, all the other bad parts of the railroad are still there. There's minimal room for creativity or expression, since you need to solve the puzzle, and you're finding yourself guessing at what the GM wants you to do. The big difference is that you know it going in, instead of discovering it partway through.



Now, the Avatar of Violence wasn't a puzzle, but you had some assumptions and solutions that were counter-intuitive to the archetype, and therefore tricky to communicate. The thing I find best in those situations is, once I realize the PC's are going along to wrong track, just kind of state out of character "Actually, ect ect".

Like "Actually, according to the research you did, if you incapacitated the Avatar without killing it, and left it tied up, you could grab the treasure and let it fade out of existence on it's own".

Which, yes, is Bad GMing Practice to just sit down and tell your players "Here is what you must do", but 1) The actual method and nature of the incapacitation is still up to them, and a challenge on it's own, and 2) This information came to them as a result of their in-character actions, the research. You as the GM are just making a connection that their characters, researching the shrine and knowledge of arcane lore and such, might have made even if the player's didn't get it from your recitation of facts, and 3) Better to be told what to do than to stumble around in the dark wasting time.

[Segev]

Dropping over dead when you smashed the mirror in his room, being stabbed through the chest with a magic spear, being burned alive, or dying from songs don't logically follow from can't be killed by violent means.I would like to note that all of these are solutions that have shown up in other media for "invincible" foes. They weren't merely "being random." They were, as BRC said, trying to find a solution.

The only way to fix this problem of trust and communication is to communicate much more clearly. You seem to think that it is "common sense" that none of those things would have worked; if it's common sense, their PCs should know that. Tell them not only "that won't work," but why it is common sense that it wouldn't. Give them the underlying facts that the "common sense" is based on, and they will be better able to extrapolate from those facts.

If your solution is "either nonviolently subdue the avatar and leave it to fade away, or run from it long enough for it to fade away," then you are no more or less railroading them by telling them that through the research they've done or the realizations their PCs "should" have than if you do not. Failing to tell them what the two possible solutions are isn't not-railroading. It's just hiding the tracks and pretending that them finding the tracks through trial and error (or mind-reading) is "not railroading."

Note: I'm not saying you ARE railroading by having an avatar that has to be dealt with in one of those two fashions. That's perfectly fine, because some things have only a few solutions to them, based on the simple rules they work from. The problem arises because you obscured those solutions out of fear of "telling them what to do."

They were LOOKING for you to tell them.

Is it "railroading" to tell the PCs that, when they go researching the weaknesses of vampires, driving a wooden stake through their heart will kill a vampire?

[Quertus]

What is the nature of railroading?


"There is an indestructible magical box that will only open if you say the name and favorite ice cream flavor of the ancient wizard who created it".

A single, very specific solution is inherent in the scenario, the players have leeway in how they reach that solution, but they're locked in.

It becomes railroading when the GM is locked in on that solution, and will not allow alternate, valid solutions: I cannot phase through the box, I cannot teleport the box, I cannot go back in time and swap the contents for a decoy, the box cannot be disenchanted / remains magical in antimagic, etc.


If your solution is "either nonviolently subdue the avatar and leave it to fade away, or run from it long enough for it to fade away," then you are no more or less railroading them by telling them that through the research they've done or the realizations their PCs "should" have than if you do not. Failing to tell them what the two possible solutions are isn't not-railroading. It's just hiding the tracks and pretending that them finding the tracks through trial and error (or mind-reading) is "not railroading."

It becomes railroading when the GM is locked in on those solutions, and will not allow alternate, valid solutions: I cannot collapse the temple and sift through the rubble for the relic; I cannot teleport away with the relic; I cannot sneak out with the relic; I cannot fly with the relic; I cannot summon a creature with earth glide to steal the relic for me; it is impossible to permanently indispose or relocate the avatar, I cannot travel back in time to a point when the relic was not guarded by the avatar and borrow it from then, etc.

And when, after all this, I lock the indestructible avatar in the indestructible box, and the first time I try to use my "indestructible avatar in a box" trick, they both get destroyed? That's par for the course for my gaming experience.

[BRC]

What is the nature of railroading?



It becomes railroading when the GM is locked in on that solution, and will not allow alternate, valid solutions: I cannot phase through the box, I cannot teleport the box, I cannot go back in time and swap the contents for a decoy, the box cannot be disenchanted / remains magical in antimagic, etc.


But in the instance where the puzzle is about bypassing a security system, then is it invalid to block "Alternate Solutions".

"I Cannot phase through the box", it's warded against such things, which makes sense, because it's an archmage's private vault, and he'd expect other archmages to rob it.
"I cannot teleport the box" same as before. Not an unreasonable thing for a paranoid archmage to ward against.

"I cannot go back in time" Okay, that one should work.
"The box cannot be disenchanted": If the box is IMPOSSIBLE to disenchant despite a high-level party with access to substantial disenchantments, then yeah, that might be railroading. But an Archmage's Vault not opening to a Dispel Magic/Antimagic field isn't beyond the realm of possibility.


When the puzzle exists in-narrative to stop people from bypassing it with alternate solutions, then blocking alternate solutions isn't really railroading, it's just representing that this is a security system. It only really breaches the realm of railroading if we hit a point where the PC's try a method that the Archmage COULDN'T have forseen and put countermeasures against.


For example, if you put the Archmage's Vault in an Anti-magic field, and start going at it with an adamantine pickaxe and all the nonmagical acid you can get your hands on, and it still doesn't work because it's constructed from some vaguely defined non-magical but indestructible material, THEN you're hitting railroady territory. There's no mystical countermeasure vs an antimagic field and an adamantine pickaxe. But if a "Valid" solution could have been predicted and blocked by the Archmage, is it really a Valid solution?

The definition of "It becomes railroading when the GM is locked onto a single solution" isn't a bad one, but I find it's not especially useful.

Especially because it subjective from the GM's perspective, and the line between "That won't work because it isn't what I thought of" and "That won't work because of the scenario" is pretty sketchy.


The wizard becomes incorporeal and tries to phase through the box. The DM blocks that, and it's pretty hard to tell if that's because it makes sense in the scenario (An archmage constructed this vault to resist attempts to open it), or because the GM wants the party to engage with the puzzle as intended. Heck, the GM may not even know, the wizard tries to phase, and they decide that would be blocked. If you ask them, they'll say it just made sense.

[Quertus]

But in the instance where the puzzle is about bypassing a security system, then is it invalid to block "Alternate Solutions".

"I Cannot phase through the box", it's warded against such things, which makes sense, because it's an archmage's private vault, and he'd expect other archmages to rob it.
"I cannot teleport the box" same as before. Not an unreasonable thing for a paranoid archmage to ward against.

"I cannot go back in time" Okay, that one should work.
"The box cannot be disenchanted": If the box is IMPOSSIBLE to disenchant despite a high-level party with access to substantial disenchantments, then yeah, that might be railroading. But an Archmage's Vault not opening to a Dispel Magic/Antimagic field isn't beyond the realm of possibility.


When the puzzle exists in-narrative to stop people from bypassing it with alternate solutions, then blocking alternate solutions isn't really railroading, it's just representing that this is a security system. It only really breaches the realm of railroading if we hit a point where the PC's try a method that the Archmage COULDN'T have forseen and put countermeasures against.


For example, if you put the Archmage's Vault in an Anti-magic field, and start going at it with an adamantine pickaxe and all the nonmagical acid you can get your hands on, and it still doesn't work because it's constructed from some vaguely defined non-magical but indestructible material, THEN you're hitting railroady territory. There's no mystical countermeasure vs an antimagic field and an adamantine pickaxe. But if a "Valid" solution could have been predicted and blocked by the Archmage, is it really a Valid solution?

The definition of "It becomes railroading when the GM is locked onto a single solution" isn't a bad one, but I find it's not especially useful.

Especially because it subjective from the GM's perspective, and the line between "That won't work because it isn't what I thought of" and "That won't work because of the scenario" is pretty sketchy.


The wizard becomes incorporeal and tries to phase through the box. The DM blocks that, and it's pretty hard to tell if that's because it makes sense in the scenario (An archmage constructed this vault to resist attempts to open it), or because the GM wants the party to engage with the puzzle as intended. Heck, the GM may not even know, the wizard tries to phase, and they decide that would be blocked. If you ask them, they'll say it just made sense.

The issue is with the definition of the problem changing. If we should have *known* that the box prevented phasing and teleporting, but didn't, then some vague excuse of, it "could have been predicted" doesn't cut it.

Define the problem, then accept all solutions to the problem as defined.

[OldTrees1]

The issue is with the definition of the problem changing. If we should have *known* that the box prevented phasing and teleporting, but didn't, then some vague excuse of, it "could have been predicted" doesn't cut it.

Define the problem, then accept all solutions to the problem as defined.

@BRC
Some of Quertus' advice here is tailored for the "lower than normal trust levels" we think we hear happen in Talakeal's group.


In a group with higher trust levels, then you can bend this guideline. For example I could have a situation where a player laughs at themselves while saying "I should have known that".

I just wanted to mention that to head off what looked like a high potential for miscommunication. Apologies in advance if it was unneeded, inapplicable, or insufficient.

[Frogreaver]

Right, but maintaining a consistent world is also part of my job, and just throwing information at the players without any justification kind of breaks that.

I mean, if I really want them to know something, I could come up with increasingly contrived ways for their characters to learn it, but I need to be aware that they need that information.

Your world is not going to be any less consistent if you give players the information they need.

When your players are formulating plans, you are privy to their conversations, no? You should be able to pick up pretty quickly whether they properly understood the information you have provided based on the nature of their plans. At that moment you have the opportunity to intervene and clear things up.

[Talakeal]

Your world is not going to be any less consistent if you give players the information they need.

When your players are formulating plans, you are privy to their conversations, no? You should be able to pick up pretty quickly whether they properly understood the information you have provided based on the nature of their plans. At that moment you have the opportunity to intervene and clear things up.

That would be amazing.

But alas, no. They rarely discuss plans at all, and when they do they seldom stick to them; they aren’t any better at communicating with one another than they are with me.

[Segev]

That would be amazing.

But alas, no. They rarely discuss plans at all, and when they do they seldom stick to them; they aren’t any better at communicating with one another than they are with me.

So, then, with this avatar of violence as an example... what DID they say or do when they first heard about it, and between then and encountering it?

[Talakeal]

So, then, with this avatar of violence as an example... what DID they say or do when they first heard about it, and between then and encountering it?

IIRC their plan was to distract it while one person went in and grabbed the artifact, then they would run and use a scroll to collapse the entrance. Not a perfect plan, but perfectly serviceable.

I don't remember all the details, but when they got there the people distracting the avatar killed it (causing it to split) after the pyromancer set it on fire. When the other players questioned him, he said that he "forgot" the plan.

The ranger spent the fight doing random things instead of helping distract it or steal the artifact, and then she decided to use the artifact to kill one of the avatars rather than retreating with it.

So now they had three avatars to deal with and were all beat to hell when they finally tried the plan, and they managed to trap 2 of the 3 avatars.

Then they decided to just let the avatar kill them and "respawn in town" with the artifact.

Then when I told them that doing so would get their followers killed, they got mad at me for "violating the gentleman's agreement". Then alternated screaming at one another for not following the plan and at me for creating an unwinnable encounter.

[Segev]

IIRC their plan was to distract it while one person went in and grabbed the artifact, then they would run and use a scroll to collapse the entrance. Not a perfect plan, but perfectly serviceable.

I don't remember all the details, but when they got there the people distracting the avatar killed it (causing it to split) after the pyromancer set it on fire. When the other players questioned him, he said that he "forgot" the plan.

The ranger spent the fight doing random things instead of helping distract it or steal the artifact, and then she decided to use the artifact to kill one of the avatars rather than retreating with it.

So now they had three avatars to deal with and were all beat to hell when they finally tried the plan, and they managed to trap 2 of the 3 avatars.

Then they decided to just let the avatar kill them and "respawn in town" with the artifact.

Then when I told them that doing so would get their followers killed, they got mad at me for "violating the gentleman's agreement". Then alternated screaming at one another for not following the plan and at me for creating an unwinnable encounter.

Hm. Only 20/20 hindsight advice I can think of is, "Remind them that the avatar splits when killed at least after the first time."

[RandomPeasant]

Hm. Only 20/20 hindsight advice I can think of is, "Remind them that the avatar splits when killed at least after the first time."

My advice would be to just find a different gaming group. Go troll around on roll20 or something until you find a group that can manage both the "think of plan" and "follow plan" steps of a plan. Gaming with people like that sounds exhausting, and deeply unsatisfying to boot.

[Herbert_W]

Then alternated screaming at one another for not following the plan and at me for creating an unwinnable encounter.

I think we've finally hit the crux of the issue after 11 pages: your players are incompetent and will blame you for their failures, regardless of how little sense that makes. In this case, they're being outright self-contradictory: their failure cannot simultaneously be the fault of players who did not follow a plan which would have worked and your fault for constructing a scenario where no plan would work. Yet, they scream at you as well as at each other.

There are three pieces of advice that follow from this:

First, your players are effectively children regardless of their actual age and the usual advice for playing with children can be applied to them (https://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/10/on-practical-guide-to-playing-d-with.html).

Secondly, you should give them frequent reminders of what their characters should know. Don't dictate their characters actions, but do allow them the chance to revise their actions at any point before the dice hit the table. "Remember, two more avatars of violence spawn whenever one is slain. Are you sure that you want to attack it?" "I think your plan was to grab the artifact and run, wasn't it?" "You can do that, but that's not what you planned to do earlier and it's going to result in you facing more avatars, not less."

Thirdly, and perhaps most fundamentally, your players will have a better time if you run the sort of campaign that they want you to run. Change the rules to let them grind, and give them hordes of goblins to fireball. If this isn't a type of campaign that you would be able to enjoy running, then ultimately your only solution will be to find new players.

[MoiMagnus]

I think we've finally hit the crux of the issue after 11 pages: your players are incompetent and will blame you for their failures, regardless of how little sense that makes. In this case, they're being outright self-contradictory: their failure cannot simultaneously be the fault of players who did not follow a plan which would have worked and your fault for constructing a scenario where no plan would work. Yet, they scream at you as well as at each other.

It's not contradictory. The players are incompetent (or at least, not highly competent). Talakeal is putting them through trials whose success and failure depends on the player's competence. If a trial is above the player's competency, and that the player's competency (or lack of thereof) has been proved times and times again, it's both the fault of the person setting up the trial and the fault of the person failing the trial. The issue was predictable.

At some point you have to accept that your players are somewhat incompetent, and do what most tactical games (Fire Emblem, etc) do when not at maximal difficulty: call the protagonists mastermind and tacticians despite the fact that their most advanced tactic being rushing forward almost mindlessly, the only "clever" part being not sending fragile units on the frontline [which is still something that even less competent players would get wrong].
Well, maybe not go to that extend as they might not be that bad, but you get the idea.

[Frogreaver]

IIRC their plan was to distract it while one person went in and grabbed the artifact, then they would run and use a scroll to collapse the entrance. Not a perfect plan, but perfectly serviceable.

I don't remember all the details, but when they got there the people distracting the avatar killed it (causing it to split) after the pyromancer set it on fire. When the other players questioned him, he said that he "forgot" the plan.

The ranger spent the fight doing random things instead of helping distract it or steal the artifact, and then she decided to use the artifact to kill one of the avatars rather than retreating with it.

So now they had three avatars to deal with and were all beat to hell when they finally tried the plan, and they managed to trap 2 of the 3 avatars.

Then they decided to just let the avatar kill them and "respawn in town" with the artifact.

Then when I told them that doing so would get their followers killed, they got mad at me for "violating the gentleman's agreement". Then alternated screaming at one another for not following the plan and at me for creating an unwinnable encounter.

To me this is quite telling. The information I discern from this is that the group didn't plan to kill the avatar. They had a decent plan to win the encounter as you envisioned that simply wasn't followed by 2 players.

When they did finally attempt the plan it failed due to their earlier actions.

They then formulated a new plan. Was the plan to die and respawn a reasonable one? I think so. The players had no apparent reason to believe the avatar would just go away and they had already found out that killing it just made things worse. The best course of action is to retreat and the fastest/safest mode of retreat is to die and respawn. The players obviously believed up to this point that their followers would follow the same PC death rules. Whether assumption or something was said that implied that we can't say. But it doesn't matter why they thought that. It matters that they did. Changing their expectations of the respawn mechanic right as they are about to use it due to getting themselves into a no-win situation was never going to go over well. Those expectations should have been set way ahead of time. Knowing that information could have changed how they approached the mission. They may have done less 'dumb' things. They may have left the NPC's at home, etc.

My guess now is that you have the same 1-2 players that are constantly going against the group plan. If that's the case you need to have an out of game discussion with the group about trying to follow the groups plan when you agree to it and how doing so will make the game more enjoyable for all.

The only other piece of advice is make your rules clear ahead of the time they are going to be invoked. The players shouldn't be blindsided by negative effects because you failed to make clear the rule was going to function in this more negative way. That one is on you and they were justified in their negative feelings toward you in it.

[Talakeal]

To me this is quite telling. The information I discern from this is that the group didn't plan to kill the avatar. They had a decent plan to win the encounter as you envisioned that simply wasn't followed by 2 players.

When they did finally attempt the plan it failed due to their earlier actions.

They then formulated a new plan. Was the plan to die and respawn a reasonable one? I think so. The players had no apparent reason to believe the avatar would just go away and they had already found out that killing it just made things worse. The best course of action is to retreat and the fastest/safest mode of retreat is to die and respawn. The players obviously believed up to this point that their followers would follow the same PC death rules. Whether assumption or something was said that implied that we can't say. But it doesn't matter why they thought that. It matters that they did. Changing their expectations of the respawn mechanic right as they are about to use it due to getting themselves into a no-win situation was never going to go over well. Those expectations should have been set way ahead of time. Knowing that information could have changed how they approached the mission. They may have done less 'dumb' things. They may have left the NPC's at home, etc.

My guess now is that you have the same 1-2 players that are constantly going against the group plan. If that's the case you need to have an out of game discussion with the group about trying to follow the groups plan when you agree to it and how doing so will make the game more enjoyable for all.

The only other piece of advice is make your rules clear ahead of the time they are going to be invoked. The players shouldn't be blindsided by negative effects because you failed to make clear the rule was going to function in this more negative way. That one is on you and they were justified in their negative feelings toward you in it.

Ok, so this is a pretty accurate summary.

The problem is the players had a perfectly serviceable plan, and refused to follow it, and then blamed ME for refusing to follow it, saying that I was trying to trick them into believing the plan wouldn't work because it was possible to twist the wording of the information I gave them.

As for the retreating thing, there were a couple of issues.

1: They felt that when I said there would be no consequences for death, they assumed I meant period, rather than for the character.
2: As such, they attempted to weaponize it by grabbing the loot and refusing to deal with its guardians, which I felt violated the "gentleman's agreement."
3: Further, they assumed that the no consequences also applied to NPCs, and when I told them it didn't, they felt I violated the "gentleman's agreement."

But, the thing that left a rotten feeling in my mouth was that the whole reason I implemented the no death rule was so they would stop being overly cautious, refusing to fight monsters, and retreating back to town every time things got hard, and instead they were using the no death rule to aid in their refusing to fight monsters and retreating back to town when things got hard.


But even so, there was no excuse for all the screaming, swearing, and threatening at the time. And there is certainly no excuse to try and drive of new players with an extremely distorted (to the point of being a flat out lie) version of the events two years later.

[RandomPeasant]

Again, why are you playing with these people? If they're driving away other players, that means there are other players you could be playing with instead. Go play with them.

[Frogreaver]

Ok, so this is a pretty accurate summary.

The problem is the players had a perfectly serviceable plan, and refused to follow it, and then blamed ME for refusing to follow it, saying that I was trying to trick them into believing the plan wouldn't work because it was possible to twist the wording of the information I gave them.

Why are these players afraid you are trying to trick them? Do they feel you have before? Did you? Is it possibly due to a history of bad communication on your part that is causing them to feel tricked at times even when you didn't intend for that? Is it possibly due to previous DM's?

As an example, if many things happened like the "no consequences for death" rule you describe where you then tell them on using that mechanic that it will entail "consequences for death"... I would certainly feel tricked in that instance.


As for the retreating thing, there were a couple of issues.

1: They felt that when I said there would be no consequences for death, they assumed I meant period, rather than for the character.

They didn't assume anything other than what you had explicitly told them. "There will be no consequences for death" is unambiguous. If you didn't clarify that wasn't what you actually meant then that's on you.


2: As such, they attempted to weaponize it by grabbing the loot and refusing to deal with its guardians, which I felt violated the "gentleman's agreement."

You told them X. Then when it comes up at a critical moment you say well I didn't really mean X. That will always anger players. Your feelings were incorrect here. The only person violating the gentleman's agreement in this instance was you.


3: Further, they assumed that the no consequences also applied to NPCs, and when I told them it didn't, they felt I violated the "gentleman's agreement."

What you did in this instance (or attempted to do, as you wisely backed down) was indefensible.


But, the thing that left a rotten feeling in my mouth was that the whole reason I implemented the no death rule was so they would stop being overly cautious, refusing to fight monsters, and retreating back to town every time things got hard, and instead they were using the no death rule to aid in their refusing to fight monsters and retreating back to town when things got hard.

So, what exactly were they supposed to do when they had an unkillable enemy on them with little resources remaining? The only time they contemplated using the "die with no consequences mechanic" was when they believed they were in an unwinnable situation. I don't see the problem there.


But even so, there was no excuse for all the screaming, swearing, and threatening at the time.

Agreed.


And there is certainly no excuse to try and drive of new players with an extremely distorted (to the point of being a flat out lie) version of the events two years later.

I may have missed where you described this, but this is the first time I'm hearing of this.

[Talakeal]

They didn't assume anything other than what you had explicitly told them. "There will be no consequences for death" is unambiguous. If you didn't clarify that wasn't what you actually meant then that's on you.

You told them X. Then when it comes up at a critical moment you say well I didn't really mean X. That will always anger players. Your feelings were incorrect here. The only person violating the gentleman's agreement in this instance was you.

What you did in this instance (or attempted to do, as you wisely backed down) was indefensible.

I am sorry you feel that way.

Is this because you are reading something I said casually on the forums as if it were a word for word contract with my players?

Because I never said "No consequences for failure whatsoever," that's ludicrous. I, in writing, told the players that PCs (specifically PCs) would not die when reduced to zero HP, but would instead roll on a mishap table. I then, verbally, reduced the penalty to a fixed financial penalty, and then removed it all together, saying that when a PC runs out of HP they are out of the fight, and if the entire party is out of HP they are broken and scattered and may regroup back in town.

I never, ever, said anything about it applying to NPCs, or to some nebulous concept of "consequences".

Out of curiosity, would you also say that if they were on a quest to stop an evil cult from sacrificing the hostage and retreated from the cult's minions before reaching their sanctum, that the hostage would also be immune to death as that counts as a consequence of PC retreat?


So, what exactly were they supposed to do when they had an unkillable enemy on them with little resources remaining? The only time they contemplated using the "die with no consequences mechanic" was when they believed they were in an unwinnable situation. I don't see the problem there.

Dozens of things that I have already mentioned, heck try the plan to trap it a second time.

But again, they went in with the plan of grab the loot, try random crap, if it doesn't work who cares? We still get the loot and don't have to deal with any consequences.


Oh, sorry, it was in the other thread.


So, ugh.

Remember what I said about the older players poisoning the well with newer players?

Well, we interviewed a new player into the group, and one of the younger and less drama free players warned him "Talakeal will kill your character and then get mad at you for dying.

Which is, like, so damn out of the blue; apparently she has been holding a serious grudge for two years over something that never happened?

Like, it was literally impossible for them to die in my last campaign and there were zero player deaths, and the closest I ever got to getting mad at them for "dying" was when they decided they wouldn't even try and fight the monsters and instead just grab the treasure and let the monsters beat on them until they got a "free teleport back to town".


New game hasn't even started yet and its already of a great start.

FML.

[Frogreaver]

I apologize if the tone comes across harsh. That's not intended.


I am sorry you feel that way.

Is this because you are reading something I said casually on the forums as if it were a word for word contract with my players?

One could take your miscommunication in this instance on this forum as further evidence that you do have a communication problem. The saving grace for this kind of problem is that improving communication will greatly improve your games.


Because I never said "No consequences for failure whatsoever," that's ludicrous. I, in writing, told the players that PCs (specifically PCs) would not die when reduced to zero HP, but would instead roll on a mishap table. I then, verbally, reduced the penalty to a fixed financial penalty, and then removed it all together, saying that when a PC runs out of HP they are out of the fight, and if the entire party is out of HP they are broken and scattered and may regroup back in town.

Your position here doesn't even logically make sense. If the whole purpose of the mechanic was to make death 'penalty free' so that your PC's would push forward, then having the death of their NPC companions be a penalty completely neuters the purpose of this mechanic. I mean, why would implementing such a mechanic in that way actually help make them feel free to push forward?


I never, ever, said anything about it applying to NPCs, or to some nebulous concept of "consequences".

You told us in your previous post that you told them 'no consequences for death'. Was that miscommunication on your part? I'll put it this way: if you communicate to your players like you are here to us, I have no doubt where their feelings of frustration and trickery come from.


Out of curiosity, would you also say that if they were on a quest to stop an evil cult from sacrificing the hostage and retreated from the cult's minions before reaching their sanctum, that the hostage would also be immune to death as that counts as a consequence of PC retreat?

I wouldn't want to play in a game with no consequences for death. But if I was in that kind of game I wouldn't count the hostage dying a consequence of PC death. That would be a consequence of not saving her fast enough.

NPC companions though, they weren't on a death timer waiting to be saved. They only died because your party died. That's a direct consequence/penalty of PC death.

So I don't view those 2 situations as similar at all.


Dozens of things that I have already mentioned, heck try the plan to trap it a second time.

But again, they went in with the plan of grab the loot, try random crap, if it doesn't work who cares? We still get the loot and don't have to deal with any consequences.

IMO. That's your projection on the situation. Based on the above description the first time the lets die and get our loot anyway came up was in the context of what they perceived was no longer a winnable encounter. It's not like they could outrun it forever. It's not like they had any idea it would eventually disappear. It's not like it seemed like it would need to stop for rest or for food or water. I don't know what you expected the players to do at that moment. (There were plenty of options leading up to that moment - but the idea first surfaced only after they were in this predicament).


Oh, sorry, it was in the other thread.

Do you understand why she feels that way? Do you know if the other players feel that way? Are you just angry that she feels that way? Is there something you could be doing to cause her not to feel that way?

[Talakeal]

One could take your miscommunication in this instance on this forum as further evidence that you do have a communication problem. The saving grace for this kind of problem is that improving communication will greatly improve your games.


You told us in your previous post that you told them 'no consequences for death'. Was that miscommunication on your part? I'll put it this way: if you communicate to your players like you are here to us, I have no doubt where their feelings of frustration and trickery come from.

It takes two people to miscommunicate, and I am willing to accept part of the blame, just not all of it.

What I don't understand, either for you or my players, is that if you suspect someone is bad at communicating, why you would assume trickery / lies or an overly literal reading that makes no sense rather than asking for clarification.


That's your projection on the situation. Based on the above description the first time the lets die and get our loot anyway came up was in the context of what they perceived was no longer a winnable encounter. It's not like they could outrun it forever. It's not like they had any idea it would eventually disappear. It's not like it seemed like it would need to stop for rest or for food or water. I don't know what you expected the players to do at that moment. (There were plenty of options leading up to that moment - but the idea first surfaced only after they were in this predicament)

Its not projection, it is a fact. There were hundreds of things they could have done, and if they had tried and failed I would have felt some bit of sympathy, but not when they just stand there and give up in an effort to bypass the encounter through metagame means.


Do you understand why she feels that way? Do you know if the other players feel that way? Are you just angry that she feels that way? Is there something you could be doing to cause her not to feel that way?

I have no idea why she feels that way, my brother would say its because she is a sociopath who holds grudges long past the point where she even remembers what she is mad about, but I am not so sure.

I am extremely mad that she feels the need to try and sabotage my relationship with a new player and blatantly lie about what happened, but not so much that she still carries a grudge.

[Frogreaver]

It takes two people to miscommunicate, and I am willing to accept part of the blame, just not all of it.

That's a good start. Generally the speaker is more likely to cause a miscommunication than the listener. That doesn't mean the listener never is the cause but human beings tend to think they convey their ideas much better than they actually do.


What I don't understand, either for you or my players, is that if you suspect someone is bad at communicating, why you would assume trickery / lies or an overly literal reading that makes no sense rather than asking for clarification.

The problem with speaker based miscommunication is that the listener often has no idea there was a miscommunication until a later critical moment.

When a moment like that arises - the best thing the DM can do is to see how your players took whatever you told them and then in the immediate scenario go forward with your players understanding as the ruling and bring up potentially changing that rule to your intent after the session or before the next session if they are good with that.


Its not projection, it is a fact. There were hundreds of things they could have done, and if they had tried and failed I would have felt some bit of sympathy, but not when they just stand there and give up in an effort to bypass the encounter through metagame means.

Sure, but I'm afraid that it seems the obvious question wasn't asked there - "players, why didn't you try to overcome this some other way". What was their answer? I think you really need the players reasoning here before you criticize their actions to the degree you are.


I have no idea why she feels that way, my brother would say its because she is a sociopath who holds grudges long past the point where she even remembers what she is mad about, but I am not so sure.

I am extremely mad that she feels the need to try and sabotage my relationship with a new player and blatantly lie about what happened, but not so much that she still carries a grudge.

There's 1,000,000 things that could be. The only way to find out is communication. Just try to be open to criticism.

[Kardwill]

Its not projection, it is a fact. There were hundreds of things they could have done,


And yet, they did none of them. You have to ask yourself "why"

It sounds like frustrated players that just wanted the scene to be over with, because they think the DM shot down too many honest attemps at solving the problem. I've seen it before : Frustration is a powerful emotion that happens very easily in TTRPGs, especially as a result of a failure of communication between GM and players. It can kill games even in normal, well adjusted groups.

Very important rule of thumb : Players are not stupid, so when they do something weird, it often means that they minsunderstood something, want something different from your expectations (and that something might be "I want this stupid game to be over"). Maybe they didn't understand the situation, or didn't understand the rules, or can't see another way out, or they are bored, or they think it will be fun?
When a player has their character do something that sounds stupid, unfun, or suicidal, ask them why. Clarify what is happening and the options that they have. Tell them the consequences. And then let them decide when they have every card in their hands, rather than fail at what they tried to do because of a misunderstanding.



But even so, there was no excuse for all the screaming, swearing, and threatening at the time.
If someone is "screaming, swearing and threatening" at other players or at the GM (including when that "someone" is the GM), then stop playing. Immediately. The game is dead, nobody will be reasonable after what just happened, and no fun will come from it anymore during that session. Simply say "this isn't fun anymore. I'm out" and stop. And see if they're okay with planning another game when everyone (you included) will have had time to "cool down".

Seriously, don't stay for the abuse. And don't let your own temper "punish" the players afterward, either.

[kyoryu]

It takes two people to miscommunicate, and I am willing to accept part of the blame, just not all of it.

I'd recommend not thinking of it as blame, but as a problem to be fixed. Are you more interested in who is to blame, or solving the problem? That is actually an honest question - sometimes people are more invested in defending their actions than they are in reaching a solution, for whatever reason.


What I don't understand, either for you or my players, is that if you suspect someone is bad at communicating, why you would assume trickery / lies or an overly literal reading that makes no sense rather than asking for clarification.

Usually because a pattern has been established. Especially one where the communicator seems reluctant to share additional information.

So, you might also ask "what situations have occurred, intentional or not, that may have caused this belief, whether it is accurate or not?"


That's a good start. Generally the speaker is more likely to cause a miscommunication than the listener. That doesn't mean the listener never is the cause but human beings tend to think they convey their ideas much better than they actually do.

In an RPG context, the GM also has the privileged position of being the one with the (by definition) 100% accurate view on the subject. Because of this they really, really need to overcommunicate, as any miscommunication can only work to the detriment of the players.



Very important rule of thumb : Players are not stupid, so when they do something weird, it often means that they minsunderstood something, want something different from your expectations (and that something might be "I want this stupid game to be over"). Maybe they didn't understand the situation, or didn't understand the rules, or can't see another way out, or they are bored, or they think it will be fun?
When a player has their character do something that sounds stupid, unfun, or suicidal, ask them why. Clarify what is happening and the options that they have. Tell them the consequences. And then let them decide when they have every card in their hands, rather than fail at what they tried to do because of a misunderstanding.

I really do think this is one of the ten commandments of GMing.

[Segev]

On the subject of not thinking of something as blame, I feel the need to point out that all anybody can truly control is what THEY, THEMSELVES do. You cannot control what others do.

Therefore, even if a problem exists on both sides, the only way for one side to improve the situation is to figure out what that one side can do, unilaterally, to improve the situation. This may involve unilaterally broaching the subject of negotiating a bilateral approach. But if a problem exists on both sides, and one side can reduce the problem by fixing their side of it, then that's a good thing for that side: they are not dependent on the other side agreeing to fix things to make things better. This gives them power and agency.

When something is my fault in a fashion I can change my behavior to fix, I am far happier with it than when it's out of my hands entirely.

[Talakeal]

And yet, they did none of them. You have to ask yourself "why"

It sounds like frustrated players that just wanted the scene to be over with, because they think the DM shot down too many honest attemps at solving the problem. I've seen it before : Frustration is a powerful emotion that happens very easily in TTRPGs, especially as a result of a failure of communication between GM and players. It can kill games even in normal, well adjusted groups.

Very important rule of thumb : Players are not stupid, so when they do something weird, it often means that they minsunderstood something, want something different from your expectations (and that something might be "I want this stupid game to be over"). Maybe they didn't understand the situation, or didn't understand the rules, or can't see another way out, or they are bored, or they think it will be fun?
When a player has their character do something that sounds stupid, unfun, or suicidal, ask them why. Clarify what is happening and the options that they have. Tell them the consequences. And then let them decide when they have every card in their hands, rather than fail at what they tried to do because of a misunderstanding.


If someone is "screaming, swearing and threatening" at other players or at the GM (including when that "someone" is the GM), then stop playing. Immediately. The game is dead, nobody will be reasonable after what just happened, and no fun will come from it anymore during that session. Simply say "this isn't fun anymore. I'm out" and stop. And see if they're okay with planning another game when everyone (you included) will have had time to "cool down".

Seriously, don't stay for the abuse. And don't let your own temper "punish" the players afterward, either.

The players told me that they assumed there was some super secret method of killing the monster that I wanted them to guess, and that I would make up an excuse to save the monster from any other strategy they tried, so they decided the best strategy was to just bypass the encounter all together by holding on tight to the artifact it was guarding and let it hit them until they got their “free teleport back to town”.


Also, I did end the session there. We took a break from gaming for a few weeks and once everyone had calmed down I apologized and retconned the encounter.

Apparently that wasn’t good enough though, as here it is two years later and she is still holding a grudge over it to such an extent that she is lying about the situation to poison new players against me.

[Talakeal]

Oh, and yes, the party absolutely knew that the Avatar wouldn’t chase them if they weren’t holding the artifact and that it would despawn after an hour as that is exactly what happened on their first attempt.

[Frogreaver]

The players told me that they assumed there was some super secret method of killing the monster that I wanted them to guess, and that I would make up an excuse to save the monster from any other strategy they tried, so they decided the best strategy was to just bypass the encounter all together by holding on tight to the artifact it was guarding and let it hit them until they got their “free teleport back to town”.

This doesn’t really jive with the fact that they made a plan to trap it and run away. And that it was only after that plan failed that they decided to implement the respawn strategy.

Did all of your players feel this way or just 1 or 2?

What happened between them going into the cave with a plan to trap them and successfully trapping 2 of the 3 and deciding that they had no choice but to guess the way to kill these things?

Did they think you unfairly let 1 escape or something?


Oh, and yes, the party absolutely knew that the Avatar wouldn’t chase them if they weren’t holding the artifact and that it would despawn after an hour as that is exactly what happened on their first attempt.

News to me that there was more than 1 attempt.

For everyone: Am I the only one feeling like new important details arise out of every other post by Talakeal?

[Talakeal]

This doesn’t really jive with the fact that they made a plan to trap it and run away. And that it was only after that plan failed that they decided to implement the respawn strategy.

Did all of your players feel this way or just 1 or 2?

What happened between them going into the cave with a plan to trap them and successfully trapping 2 of the 3 and deciding that they had no choice but to guess the way to kill these things?

Did they think you unfairly let 1 escape or something?



News to me that there was more than 1 attempt.

For everyone: Am I the only one feeling like new important details arise out of every other post by Talakeal?

Yes, different players apparently had different plans. AFAICT one wanted to distract it, one kill it in different ways, one trap it, and one try random stuff.

Apparently we had a another miscommunication issue, when I described the one avatar managing to escape the trap, two of the players read it not as leaping clear at the last moment, but of somehow turning i corporeal and phasing through the wall. I don't see how they got that, but it fit their preconceived notion that I would make up abilities to shoot down any plan that wasn't the one true way.

There are lots of details I am leaving out, summary is hard. The longer the post the less likely people will read it, for example at the time I was posting multipage campaign diaries of every session with commentary, but stopped because nobody was taking the time to read them.

Also note that this is a tangential discussion of a event that happened two hears ago, I am just answering questions as they come up, not trying to tell the whole story to get a clear and unbiased view of the event, although I did make several detailed threads at the tine.

[Segev]

The players told me that they assumed there was some super secret method of killing the monster that I wanted them to guess, and that I would make up an excuse to save the monster from any other strategy they tried, so they decided the best strategy was to just bypass the encounter all together by holding on tight to the artifact it was guarding and let it hit them until they got their “free teleport back to town”.Did they tell you this as they were declaring their intention, or after the session later?



Also, I did end the session there. We took a break from gaming for a few weeks and once everyone had calmed down I apologized and retconned the encounter.Not sure apologizing for the encounter is the right way to go about it; this was, again, a failure of communication, not of encounter design. The trick is to make sure that the players are operating on all the cylinders their PCs should have. Hence things like asking them what they intend to achieve by splatting the Avatar again when they've seen it split each time they do so.


Apparently that wasn’t good enough though, as here it is two years later and she is still holding a grudge over it to such an extent that she is lying about the situation to poison new players against me.
Stop playing with her, then. Tell her, bluntly, that you are hurt by her constantly poisoning new players against you, and that you'll not run games under those circumstances. Then don't invite her to your games anymore. Play with her, if you like, when both of you are players, but don't let her ruin DMing for you.

[Quertus]

What I don't understand, either for you or my players, is that if you suspect someone is bad at communicating, why you would assume trickery / lies or an overly literal reading that makes no sense rather than asking for clarification.

Now you are asking the right questions.

No, seriously, that's exactly the kind of question you need to be asking, because it will lead to actionable strategies for improvement. I don't know the answer, as I don't understand what your players are thinking most of the time. Were it me, the answer would be something like, "I thought I had a clear, unambiguous answer, and thus I didn't think that I needed to ask any more questions".


The problem with speaker based miscommunication is that the listener often has no idea there was a miscommunication until a later critical moment.

When a moment like that arises - the best thing the DM can do is to see how your players took whatever you told them and then in the immediate scenario go forward with your players understanding as the ruling and bring up potentially changing that rule to your intent after the session or before the next session if they are good with that.

Although I pretty much agree with the first paragraph, I'm really struggling with the second. Like, if the players decided to have their PCs jump to the Moon, because the GM said that they could (without mentioning the crushing DC of doing so), how does the campaign continue with any sanity afterwards?

-----

A lot of really good comments hit this thread recently. Since I don't have much to add beyond saying "+1 this", I'll just leave a few words of wisdom from the various posters in a Spoiler, as my own way of saying "kudos!".


Sure, but I'm afraid that it seems the obvious question wasn't asked there - "players, why didn't you try to overcome this some other way". What was their answer? I think you really need the players reasoning here before you criticize their actions to the degree you are.


And yet, they did none of them. You have to ask yourself "why"

It sounds like frustrated players that just wanted the scene to be over with, because they think the DM shot down too many honest attemps at solving the problem. I've seen it before : Frustration is a powerful emotion that happens very easily in TTRPGs, especially as a result of a failure of communication between GM and players. It can kill games even in normal, well adjusted groups.

Very important rule of thumb : Players are not stupid, so when they do something weird, it often means that they minsunderstood something, want something different from your expectations (and that something might be "I want this stupid game to be over"). Maybe they didn't understand the situation, or didn't understand the rules, or can't see another way out, or they are bored, or they think it will be fun?
When a player has their character do something that sounds stupid, unfun, or suicidal, ask them why. Clarify what is happening and the options that they have. Tell them the consequences. And then let them decide when they have every card in their hands, rather than fail at what they tried to do because of a misunderstanding.


I'd recommend not thinking of it as blame, but as a problem to be fixed. Are you more interested in who is to blame, or solving the problem? That is actually an honest question - sometimes people are more invested in defending their actions than they are in reaching a solution, for whatever reason.


In an RPG context, the GM also has the privileged position of being the one with the (by definition) 100% accurate view on the subject. Because of this they really, really need to overcommunicate, as any miscommunication can only work to the detriment of the players.


On the subject of not thinking of something as blame, I feel the need to point out that all anybody can truly control is what THEY, THEMSELVES do. You cannot control what others do.

Therefore, even if a problem exists on both sides, the only way for one side to improve the situation is to figure out what that one side can do, unilaterally, to improve the situation. This may involve unilaterally broaching the subject of negotiating a bilateral approach. But if a problem exists on both sides, and one side can reduce the problem by fixing their side of it, then that's a good thing for that side: they are not dependent on the other side agreeing to fix things to make things better. This gives them power and agency.

When something is my fault in a fashion I can change my behavior to fix, I am far happier with it than when it's out of my hands entirely.

[Kardwill]

The players told me that they assumed there was some super secret method of killing the monster that I wanted them to guess, and that I would make up an excuse to save the monster from any other strategy they tried, so they decided the best strategy was to just bypass the encounter all together by holding on tight to the artifact it was guarding and let it hit them until they got their “free teleport back to town”.


I imagine you asked the question and had this explanation afterward? Stopping to ask them what they intend to achieve with their current course of action, allow you to understand what is going wrong and clarify the situation with them, so they can make an informed decision.


Oh, and yes, the party absolutely knew that the Avatar wouldn’t chase them if they weren’t holding the artifact and that it would despawn after an hour as that is exactly what happened on their first attempt.

They learned it once, but did they remember it when they had that "second round". Players forget lots of stuff, all the time, especially when in the middle of an action scene. That's one of the main reason why you have to tell them several times, in different circunstances ("rule of 3", friendly reminders, etc...), so that they have the information and realise its importance at the critical moment.

Those 2 combine : If you ask them why they decided to suicide their character, and their reply makes it apparent that they're operating on bad assumption ("Talakeal wants us to destroy the monster") and that they forgot critical stuff ("the monster is operating on a timer, and delaying it long enough will ensure victory"), you can remind them that critical information that they forgot or didn't think important.
It can be done IC ("you see fragments of darkness slowly falling of the Avatar of Violence and dissolving into nothingness, just like it did before the thing disappeared last time. If you can hold it off a few more minutes, there's a fair chance you should be okay". Or the bad guy gloating and giving critical information is a classic. "Foolish mortals! I cannot be destroyed. I will only exist for one hour, but I only need a few mere minutes to kill you all!"), but telling it outright ("guys, that guy can't be killed, but remember, last time you fought that thing, it ceased to exist after one hour") works too, especially if your players don't trust the hints you're giving them.

Is that railroady handholding? Yeah, completely. But when you're presenting a puzzle to the players, if you don't want frustration and pixel-searching souring your game, you have to be willing to either :
- guide them toward some of the solutions you decided were right, even if you have to be blatant and heavy-handed
- or (my prefered approach, since that encourage the players' imagination and initiative) accept some of the alternate solutions they come up with and congratulate them for finding "the true legit solution" ("My players think they can kill the avatar of violence with nonviolence --> sounds fun --> Let's go along with it by having the monster visibly hurting when the bard starts singing a love ballad" or "That thing is an avatar of indiscriminate, blind violence, so maybe, if he splits, we can force it to fight itself! --> sounds fun --> Ask the players how they intend to have the "clones" fighting one another")

Since you told us that you don't like the "embrace the players' silly ideas" plan, you have to help them, by communicating enough information until they find of of the solutions you deem acceptable.

[GloatingSwine]

For everyone: Am I the only one feeling like new important details arise out of every other post by Talakeal?

The dance must be danced in accordance with the steps. This is one of the steps.

[Talakeal]

The dance must be danced in accordance with the steps. This is one of the steps.

Do you seriously expect me to condense an eight hour gaming session (and all the past context that goes into it and after conversations) down to a post people will actually read without skipping a single detail that someone could find relevant?

[Talakeal]

I imagine you asked the question and had this explanation afterward? Stopping to ask them what they intend to achieve with their current course of action, allow you to understand what is going wrong and clarify the situation with them, so they can make an informed decision.



They learned it once, but did they remember it when they had that "second round". Players forget lots of stuff, all the time, especially when in the middle of an action scene. That's one of the main reason why you have to tell them several times, in different circunstances ("rule of 3", friendly reminders, etc...), so that they have the information and realise its importance at the critical moment.

Those 2 combine : If you ask them why they decided to suicide their character, and their reply makes it apparent that they're operating on bad assumption ("Talakeal wants us to destroy the monster") and that they forgot critical stuff ("the monster is operating on a timer, and delaying it long enough will ensure victory"), you can remind them that critical information that they forgot or didn't think important.
It can be done IC ("you see fragments of darkness slowly falling of the Avatar of Violence and dissolving into nothingness, just like it did before the thing disappeared last time. If you can hold it off a few more minutes, there's a fair chance you should be okay". Or the bad guy gloating and giving critical information is a classic. "Foolish mortals! I cannot be destroyed. I will only exist for one hour, but I only need a few mere minutes to kill you all!"), but telling it outright ("guys, that guy can't be killed, but remember, last time you fought that thing, it ceased to exist after one hour") works too, especially if your players don't trust the hints you're giving them.

Is that railroady handholding? Yeah, completely. But when you're presenting a puzzle to the players, if you don't want frustration and pixel-searching souring your game, you have to be willing to either :
- guide them toward some of the solutions you decided were right, even if you have to be blatant and heavy-handed
- or (my prefered approach, since that encourage the players' imagination and initiative) accept some of the alternate solutions they come up with and congratulate them for finding "the true legit solution" ("My players think they can kill the avatar of violence with nonviolence --> sounds fun --> Let's go along with it by having the monster visibly hurting when the bard starts singing a love ballad" or "That thing is an avatar of indiscriminate, blind violence, so maybe, if he splits, we can force it to fight itself! --> sounds fun --> Ask the players how they intend to have the "clones" fighting one another")

Since you told us that you don't like the "embrace the players' silly ideas" plan, you have to help them, by communicating enough information until they find of of the solutions you deem acceptable.

That latter is actually a lovely idea!

Yeah, that’s the sort of amazing thing that I had never even considered but would work wonderfully.

[Frogreaver]

Do you seriously expect me to condense an eight hour gaming session (and all the past context that goes into it and after conversations) down to a post people will actually read without skipping a single detail that someone could find relevant?

For me: I expect enough detail after 100s of posts (many by you) that I’m not being blindsided by much new information at this point in the conversation.

You’ll note this criticism didn’t crop up till after 100s of posts.

Better Communication is the key. IMO.

[Talakeal]

For me: I expect enough detail after 100s of posts (many by you) that I’m not being blindsided by much new information at this point in the conversation.

You’ll note this criticism didn’t crop up till after 100s of posts.

Better Communication is the key. IMO.

Do note though that this thread wasn’t about that issue and it was originally only mentioned in passing.

The original post from two years ago did include the fact that it didn’t pursue.

[GloatingSwine]

Do you seriously expect me to condense an eight hour gaming session (and all the past context that goes into it and after conversations) down to a post people will actually read without skipping a single detail that someone could find relevant?

Now I'm just going to point out here that a common theme in your tales of woe you bring to the forum is that your players don't have enough information to engage with whatever situation you're giving them.

The facts that we get this drip feed of details over time, and they never have enough information do not seem unrelated to me.

[Talakeal]

Now I'm just going to point out here that a common theme in your tales of woe you bring to the forum is that your players don't have enough information to engage with whatever situation you're giving them.

The facts that we get this drip feed of details over time, and they never have enough information do not seem unrelated to me.

Agreed. That is how both games and conversations work; in the former you discover things over the course of play, and in the latter you ask questions and receive answers.

[Segev]

Agreed. That is how both games and conversations work; in the former you discover things over the course of play, and in the latter you ask questions and receive answers.

I think his point is - though I do wince at how aggressively he's making it - that you may need, as I think you've already acknowledged as an idea, to do what you think is overcommunicating. Remind them of options and consequences their characters should know and you think are obvious. Every time they do something. And make sure, when they do something, you know what it is they're trying to achieve. Ask them what they think the result will be, or what they hope it will be.

[Talakeal]

I think his point is - though I do wince at how aggressively he's making it - that you may need, as I think you've already acknowledged as an idea, to do what you think is overcommunicating. Remind them of options and consequences their characters should know and you think are obvious. Every time they do something. And make sure, when they do something, you know what it is they're trying to achieve. Ask them what they think the result will be, or what they hope it will be.

Yeah, true. But on forums, the longer a post is, the less likely anybody is to read it. Heck, in my other thread numerous people are telling me I need to drastically cut down a one page letter to prevent misinterpretation.

[Frogreaver]

Yeah, true. But on forums, the longer a post is, the less likely anybody is to read it. Heck, in my other thread numerous people are telling me I need to drastically cut down a one page letter to prevent misinterpretation.

I can write long posts and don't tend to get that reaction.

What I do find with longer posts is that often someone will pick out something I considered a minor detail and focus their discussion around that. So if you are wanting a thread with a very clear focus, you will need to be concise as nearly any idea or fact you put into it can and will be disputed by someone - and so the less of them you need to start the thread off and support it's premise the better it typically works.

But, if you are going to discuss a particular topic like a play experience of yours then you need to provide all the important details of that play experience. A few missing details is forgivable as we are all only human. But a constant drip of new important details makes discussing those experiences feel bad - and I would say its a similar kind of bad to players constantly feeling like they don't have the information to properly make any plans that aren't later going to be thwarted by some unknown detail.

[Segev]

Yeah, true. But on forums, the longer a post is, the less likely anybody is to read it. Heck, in my other thread numerous people are telling me I need to drastically cut down a one page letter to prevent misinterpretation.

The "wall of text" problem is a real one, yes. I find that it is helped by solid visual and conceptual organization. Clearly-visible headings and sub-headings, sometimes spoiler tags to reduce the amount of detail anybody has to read to just get the overview, and also not necessarily telling the story chronologically, depending what it is you're trying to get across.

This may not actually be the right way to do it, but as an example, I might suggest arranging it with an overview of what you think the problem is as a thesis paragraph, talking about the fact that the players didn't accept what you told them and thought you were trying to force them to guess a "secret way to kill it," and got mad over the resolution.

Then, give the details about the scenario as you set it up and as you know it. Not what the players did with it, but what you, as DM, knew about it. Sub-sections might expand on things like how the shrine fit in with the rest of the adventure, what sources of information the players could access, and what they could have learned and where. This is also where you'd tell us things like the fact that it's part of a larger dungeon complex and how long the avatar could chase them after they ran off with the loot.

Next, a chronological story about how the players interacted with this part of the adventure, starting with (1) how they first learned of it, (2) what they sought to do to learn more about it, (3) how they planned to approach it and what, if any, preparations they made to support this plan, and (4) what they actually did. Each number would likely benefit from having its own sub-heading, and maybe spoilers for longer explanations after a brief summary. Throughout this, you may need to include what you told them in response to their actions, or that prompted their actions. (I mention this because a lot of the problems with your players doing "stupid things" seems to me to stem from them having incomplete or incorrect mental models of the scenarios, but I can't be sure without knowing what you've not only told them in the past, but are telling them they perceive and / or remember in the moment.)

Note that I'm not saying this is a requirement for all posts you make. I'm using this as an example of how you can gather together a lengthy response when it becomes clear that readers here on the forum are trying to prize out more details and don't have the clear picture they need to fairly assess what you've brought to them to discuss. Note, here, too, the use of the line; I am visually separating this commentary on my suggestion, above, from the commentary.

Ways of breaking up the wall of text, visually, and helping people who are skimming get to the areas they want to read about will ensure people can read and come back to it. It's a lot easier to refer back to a document or post organized in such a fashion and find the relevant details to a particular discussion point than it is to be pointed to a wall of text that has no clear high-level visual organization and try to find the part where it talks about, say, what the PCs did to research the Avatar or what, specifically, the Avatar does when faced with destruction (i.e. the fact that it splits).

[Talakeal]

Yeah, organizing a post like an essay could work (although I am still sure to let some vital bit of context or minor but critical detail slip my mind) but that's just not how I am trained to think about either forum posts or face to face dialogues. I am normally posting from my phone or while on break at work, which doesn't really lend itself well to such intensive scrutiny.

Like I said above, I probably could have phrased "As it is born of violence, it can never be killed by it," better, but I really wasn't expecting the players to try and twist my words because they were expecting trickery, I was just casually responding to an impromptu question at the table.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, organizing a post like an essay could work (although I am still sure to let some vital bit of context or minor but critical detail slip my mind) but that's just not how I am trained to think about either forum posts or face to face dialogues. I am normally posting from my phone or while on break at work, which doesn't really lend itself well to such intensive scrutiny.

Like I said above, I probably could have phrased "As it is born of violence, it can never be killed by it," better, but I really wasn't expecting the players to try and twist my words because they were expecting trickery, I was just casually responding to an impromptu question at the table.

Since the info was OOC (the result of a knowledge roll, right?) what I would do in this case is correct any apparent misconceptions as they become obvious.

Edit:

And even if it was IC? Given the issues at your table (trust, communication, bad interpretations with no benefit of the doubt given), in this case once I saw them ratholing on the language I'd just tell them straight out "guys, OOC? It can't be killed. Period. That's what that means." It solves a lot of issues and dodges a lot of frustration. And the cost in terms of immersion is almost none.

[Talakeal]

Since the info was OOC (the result of a knowledge roll, right?) what I would do in this case is correct any apparent misconceptions as they become obvious.

Edit:

And even if it was IC? Given the issues at your table (trust, communication, bad interpretations with no benefit of the doubt given), in this case once I saw them ratholing on the language I'd just tell them straight out "guys, OOC? It can't be killed. Period. That's what that means." It solves a lot of issues and dodges a lot of frustration. And the cost in terms of immersion is almost none.

The problem with that (and with the forgetting stuff problem) is that I don't know what they don't know.

Taking a zero tolerance policy and correcting them the moment they do something I don't understand seems overbearing and rail-roady, but by the time they told me they thought I was trying to trick them it was already far too late to salvage the situation (which was why I retconned the whole thing).

[kyoryu]

The problem with that (and with the forgetting stuff problem) is that I don't know what they don't know.

Taking a zero tolerance policy and correcting them the moment they do something I don't understand seems overbearing and rail-roady, but by the time they told me they thought I was trying to trick them it was already far too late to salvage the situation (which was why I retconned the whole thing).

But you can see when they're doing something that doesn't make sense given what you think they know/should know. That's the time to step in. And it doesn't have to be overbearing, it can just be "um, guys, you know that the thing can't be killed." All you're doing is cutting off dead ends. Anything "railroady" about that is in the situation, not your giving them the relevant info.

I mean, you keep saying that things aren't working, but you resist trying something different. Why not give it a shot? Worst that can happen is things still don't work.

[Segev]

The problem with that (and with the forgetting stuff problem) is that I don't know what they don't know.

Taking a zero tolerance policy and correcting them the moment they do something I don't understand seems overbearing and rail-roady, but by the time they told me they thought I was trying to trick them it was already far too late to salvage the situation (which was why I retconned the whole thing).


But you can see when they're doing something that doesn't make sense given what you think they know/should know. That's the time to step in. And it doesn't have to be overbearing, it can just be "um, guys, you know that the thing can't be killed." All you're doing is cutting off dead ends. Anything "railroady" about that is in the situation, not your giving them the relevant info.

I mean, you keep saying that things aren't working, but you resist trying something different. Why not give it a shot? Worst that can happen is things still don't work.

Basically, any time you don't think their actions make sense - and you've indicated several times that they often do things you don't think make sense - you should ask them what they expect the outcome to be. And then correct any misconceptions this reveals, or even suggest better ways to achieve that if they seem to have missed something obvious.

[kyoryu]

Basically, any time you don't think their actions make sense - and you've indicated several times that they often do things you don't think make sense - you should ask them what they expect the outcome to be. And then correct any misconceptions this reveals, or even suggest better ways to achieve that if they seem to have missed something obvious.

This is my "players aren't crazy" rule (really, "people aren't crazy"). When someone does something that appears crazy, assume there's a miscommunication, or that either you or they don't understand something.

In an RPG, given the privileged position the GM has, it's usually best to start by assuming that you haven't communicated sufficiently, and make sure it is. "What do you intend to accomplish?" is a great way to start this conversation.

[Talakeal]

But you can see when they're doing something that doesn't make sense given what you think they know/should know. That's the time to step in. And it doesn't have to be overbearing, it can just be "um, guys, you know that the thing can't be killed." All you're doing is cutting off dead ends. Anything "railroady" about that is in the situation, not your giving them the relevant info.

I mean, you keep saying that things aren't working, but you resist trying something different. Why not give it a shot? Worst that can happen is things still don't work.

Its not about resisting the advice, I agree its good advice.

Its just one that is tough to follow, as I often find myself threading the needle things where if I don't do it just right and err on to much or to little I risk a player explosion. My players are very touching, and very sensitive about being talked down to, which is how they often interpret questioning their actions.

[Frogreaver]

Its not about resisting the advice, I agree its good advice.

Its just one that is tough to follow, as I often find myself threading the needle things where if I don't do it just right and err on to much or to little I risk a player explosion. My players are very touching, and very sensitive about being talked down to, which is how they often interpret questioning their actions.

"So Bob, you are wanting to attack the unkillable enemy. If you tell me what you are hoping to achieve by doing that I can make a better ruling about whether it's successful."

Would something like that not work?

[Squire Doodad]

"So Bob, you are wanting to attack the unkillable enemy. If you tell me what you are hoping to achieve by doing that I can make a better ruling about whether it's successful."

Would something like that not work?

Or, to be a bit nicer: "Wait, what's the goal here? Are you trying to distract it while everyone else flees or something?"

[Segev]

Its not about resisting the advice, I agree its good advice.

Its just one that is tough to follow, as I often find myself threading the needle things where if I don't do it just right and err on to much or to little I risk a player explosion. My players are very touching, and very sensitive about being talked down to, which is how they often interpret questioning their actions.

My advice is just to do your best not to sound condescending. If they get offended that you're "talking down to them," try to calmly reply that you're not; you're trying to improve communication to build trust (or something akin to that that uses the terms they've used to accuse you of trying to trick or railroad them). You're actively trying NOT to trick or railroad them with this. By asking what they intend to accomplish, you're admitting that you may not see what they see, or that you may have not communicated something clearly. But you don't know what that is, until you get from them what it is they're trying to accomplish.

This is why, "What are you hoping this will achieve?" is a good question, in my opinion. It means that either you don't understand their action, or they may be missing something crucial that you need to clarify.

If they blow up at you when you ask the question, try to remain calm, at least the first time, and tell them why you're asking. Explain that your goal is to avoid deceiving them, even unintentionally, but that you don't understand why the yare doing what they're doing. It's your job - you ideally are explaining to them - to make sure you've given them a clear picture of what their PCs would know, but you also respect your players enough to assume that, if they have all the information, they probably have a clever plan that you're not seeing. If they tell you what they hope to achieve, you can either agree that it's clever, or you can try to clarify the situation with things their PCs would know that would explain why it wouldn't work. Additionally, knowing their goal, you could offer ideas on how to achieve it or something like it based on what the PCs should know.

Tell them this. Tell them that you're never trying to "trick" them with hidden information, so when they feel like you are, it's probably because you have not done as good a job conveying key details to them as you intended. You asking them what they hope a course of action will achieve is both so you can try to plan towards that, and so you can make sure they - as players - have all the information their characters would.

[Quertus]

Talakeal, you said you were interested in this… uh… "testing" concept I supposedly (darn senility) suggested, right? Well, before you start a big long campaign, here is what I would love to see you try.

Write up a letter, and submit it to the Playground for inspection. The letter should read something like this:
Dear group,

As we all know, there have been several communication issues that have reduced the fun of the game for all. I have spoken with people online, and they have provided me with several good suggestions to improve and increase communication. However, I am uncertain regarding whether some of them will be viewed positively, or whether all of them together might feel like railroading.

Thus, I would like to run a short adventure using *all* of the following tools:


1) Encounters in the game will have two modes: white box, and black box. In white box mode, when you first encounter or hear about a creature, I will hand you their stat block, and dealing with them is a simple war game; in black box, I will not - they are puzzle monsters that you must learn about in game, through research, experimentation, etc. The doppelganger pretending to be a Vampire and the Avatar of Hate are two examples of monsters that would receive black box treatment.

2) to the extent possible, I will only communicate to you about black box items through text boxes. Text boxes will be read by one of you, and, one unlocked, will be available online.

All black box encounters will be pre-verified to be not just understandable, but to suggest multiple solutions to [my non-gaming parents / random 5-year-olds / the sources of this advice / whatever].

3) whether while box or black box, all encounters will, to the extent possible, be stated out before the party even exists. Thus, they will not be tailored to the party. The entire adventure will live in a sealed envelope, and you will be able to review both a) the contents of this envelope after the campaign, and b) the stats of any encounter after the encounter is over, to confirm that all encounters match what I presented and I'm not pulling anything.

4) whenever you attempt to take an action that I do not understand *why* you would take, I will ask you to explain your reasoning. If your reasoning is based on something your character would know better than to attempt (wait until night to navigate by the stars when this world has no stars, for example), I will correct this misunderstanding.

I encourage you to run your plans by me early, so that I can correct such misunderstandings early. As I am new at this, I encourage you to do the same, and ask, "why" if any of your fellow players takes an action you don't understand, or that seems to run contrary to your agreed-upon plans, at last until I get used to it.

5) etc

The idea is to try this combination out, and get your feedback. Based on our experience, we will plan another test, or move on to the campaign.

And for this short adventure, you should include *more* puzzle monsters, proportionally, than you normally would, to ensure that they get a few black box tests in.

I would love to see the letter you come up with, and how your players respond *after* the playground edits it for you.

[Talakeal]

I think at this point I am kind of brow-beaten and nervous. This new trend of taking something I said, twisting it, and throwing it back in my face has gotten me scared to say anything. Likewise, I find myself walking on egg-shells all the time as a lot of my friends snap at me in any context for not giving them precisely the right amount of information, maybe I just need to get my confidence back.


Quertus, this is good stuff. Although I am not going to be able to create the whole campaign in advance because I am not doing a sandbox game anymore.


Also, my players are very secretive and do not want me to know about their plans, they don't discuss them whenI am present and will not tell me what they are going to do until they do it.

[Segev]

Also, my players are very secretive and do not want me to know about their plans, they don't discuss them whenI am present and will not tell me what they are going to do until they do it.

You need to have a conversation with them about this. Explain to them that what they keep claiming is you "hiding things" or "tricking them" is actually just a communication issue. You can't know what they don't understand about what you've said until they tell you what they're planning. So when they try to keep a secret plan until they spring it on you, but that secret plan turns out to be based on assumptions that are incorrect, or on misunderstandings of what you'd told them, or on something you think you'd told them but they didn't hear, they feel like you're "changing the rules" to thwart them.

Both sides need to communicate more. This isn't to say you'll promise them that they'll know everything, but you should promise them that you'll work to ensure they know everything their characters should know, including likely outcomes if actions.

But just going back to the Avatar of Violence, simple things like, "What are you trying to do by killing this one? Remember: it just splits into two new ones when you destroy one," can go a long way to reminding them to think about what they're doing. Or at least rethink it, if for some reason they didn't realize that.

[Frogreaver]

Also, my players are very secretive and do not want me to know about their plans,

Sounds like they don't trust you to not modify the situation based on their stated plans. I have no idea how to fix that level of a lack of trust.


they don't discuss them when I am present and will not tell me what they are going to do until they do it.

I think this can be worked around. You don't need the whole plan just the 'goal' for the immediate action.

[Quertus]

I think at this point I am kind of brow-beaten and nervous. This new trend of taking something I said, twisting it, and throwing it back in my face has gotten me scared to say anything. Likewise, I find myself walking on egg-shells all the time as a lot of my friends snap at me in any context for not giving them precisely the right amount of information, maybe I just need to get my confidence back.

Personally, I take it as them demonstrating how poorly you communicate. And how important they consider it that you work to improve. If you're lucky, they'll keep doing it until they realize that you've gotten the memo.


Quertus, this is good stuff. Although I am not going to be able to create the whole campaign in advance because I am not doing a sandbox game anymore.

1) no, you should do a 1-shot, written entirely in advance.

2) no, once you finally do run a campaign, you are running a "normal, linear" adventure - which is *much* easier to write up in advance than a sandbox.


Also, my players are very secretive and do not want me to know about their plans, they don't discuss them whenI am present and will not tell me what they are going to do until they do it.

And that is something that this is designed to help with.

Writing the monster tactics down as well, and sticking to them, not making them dumber when the party is struggling or smarter when the party is winning, but actually playing them the same either way, CaW over CaS, will *also* help encourage your players to trust you with their plans.


Sounds like they don't trust you to not modify the situation based on their stated plans. I have no idea how to fix that level of a lack of trust.

Placing a copy of the campaign in a sealed envelope in a lock box that only the whole group can open, so that they learn that, yes, the Ogre really did always have that sneeze power, would help.

Showing them the notes on each encounter after it is over would help.

Running the monsters with consistent strategies not affected by how well the party is doing would help.

Heck, even the majority of the encounters being white box may help with building trust in a way that might carry over here.

[icefractal]

I think at this point I am kind of brow-beaten and nervous. This new trend of taking something I said, twisting it, and throwing it back in my face has gotten me scared to say anything. Likewise, I find myself walking on egg-shells all the time as a lot of my friends snap at me in any context for not giving them precisely the right amount of information, maybe I just need to get my confidence back.That sounds ... possibly abusive. Like they're using you as a punching bag to blow off steam. Or at the very least, "rant at Talakeal" has become part of the group culture.

You've mentioned you're not willing to kick anyone out over this, but have you considered just not engaging them? They think something's unfair? Fine, acknowledge they're entitled to their opinion. And that's it - don't change anything in response, don't debate it, just continue with the game. If they're not willing to move past the point, sounds like you should wrap up the session there, discuss it by email or text between then and the next session, and hopefully have things resolved by then. Or wait to play until they are resolved. They should find ranting at you to be an unsatisfying experience which does not provide them any stress relief - which would hopefully mean they stop doing it for fun.

Yeah, that is a bit passive aggressive, and not what I would generally recommend, but it seems like what the situation calls for.


On a less "bizarro world" note, have you considered putting information on index cards and handing it to the players? If they weren't paying attention the first time, they can read it again when it comes up. If they claim you never told them, point to the card. And having a visual reminder of what they know might help them remember to use it.

[Cluedrew]

I think at this point I am kind of brow-beaten and nervous. This new trend of taking something I said, twisting it, and throwing it back in my face has gotten me scared to say anything. Likewise, I find myself walking on egg-shells all the time as a lot of my friends snap at me in any context for not giving them precisely the right amount of information, maybe I just need to get my confidence back.
Personally, I take it as them demonstrating how poorly you communicate. And how important they consider it that you work to improve. If you're lucky, they'll keep doing it until they realize that you've gotten the memo.No, things like "Talakeal will kill your character and blame you for it." are not merely a blunt way of phrasing, "Talakeal leaves out important details sometime and often makes hard encounters." Sure bad communication issues might be contributing factor but kindest interpretation I can believe is they believe Talakeal is in denial about being a killer GM and are trying to warn others about that. And that would mean the straight up do not believe what Talakeal says about their gaming style. That's more than just communication. And I don't know why they think this would be a good way to address that.

[RandomPeasant]

You've mentioned you're not willing to kick anyone out over this, but have you considered just not engaging them?

I'm not sure if it's this thread or one of the other ones where I asked, but has he explained why he doesn't just find a different gaming group, or write out his ideas as a web serial or something? Because it sounds to me like all his problems stem from (charitably) playing with people who have an incompatible understanding of how games should work or (uncharitably) playing with people who are awful players. On some level, I just don't think you're going to solve the problem by changing how you play when the personalities are that incompatible. I find it difficult to believe that there's not another group he could join, or that he couldn't get his fix from a play-by-post/Roll20 game.

[Quertus]

No, things like "Talakeal will kill your character and blame you for it." are not merely a blunt way of phrasing, "Talakeal leaves out important details sometime and often makes hard encounters." Sure bad communication issues might be contributing factor but kindest interpretation I can believe is they believe Talakeal is in denial about being a killer GM and are trying to warn others about that. And that would mean the straight up do not believe what Talakeal says about their gaming style. That's more than just communication. And I don't know why they think this would be a good way to address that.

Cluedrew, leave it to you to go for what, to me, is the most complex example.

So… you're right. And so am I. At least, that is the potential that I am currently exploring when I claim that their behavior is (partially) about communication.

So, for starters, I took the phrase,

This new trend of taking something I said, twisting it, and throwing it back in my face to refer to things more obviously directed *at* Talakeal.

Now, to the extent that this particular exchange could be about communication… 1) "Talakeal, you are a killer GM. I'm not saying this to you, so there's no point in you responding… but look how, even when I say this to a new player, none of your other players correct me. Maybe you'll actually hear me this time, when you're not too busy denying it, when you see that everyone else sees that it is true." 2) "Talakeal, you come across as blaming us for dying…" 2a) "so here's what that feels like, maybe you'll learn to communicate differently once you understand how important this is"; 2b) "assuming I don't actually believe that that's what you meant (or 'assuming that I believe you when you say that that's not what you meant'), look how, even when I say this to a new player, none of your other players correct me. Maybe you'll actually hear me this time, when you're not too busy denying it, when you see that everyone else sees that it is true."

So it is possible that, at some level, even that exchange is a call for improved communication. (EDIT for clarity: remember that communication is both speaking and listening.) And it's arguable that improved communication could reduce the frequent of such comments. (Although, personally, I'm betting more on "trust" and "demonstrated desire to improve" (rather than past "chaotic epimethian changes") to be the more valuable factors here.)

The way that Talakeal's players describe modules? That isn't Bizarro World, that's completely sane. The way that Talakeal's player(s) responded to his letter on "agency"? Very predictable.

So, when we have clear, unambiguous, exacting accounts of precisely what they're responding to, Talakeal's players don't seem Bizarro World. This very strongly shifts… and I don't want to say "blame", but, rather, means that Talakeal probably has control over this issue, has every opportunity to solve it themselves. This is great! It means that the group isn't just purely, unfixably toxic, they are probably actually responding to something within Talakeal's control to change.

(Now, that they're seemingly responding to that with all the maturity of an angry baby, or all the benevolence of an abusive partner, is still troubling. But let's focus on the good news.)

So, the power of my plan is to completely change Talakeal's delivery of information, and see how they respond. And to do so in such a way that the information is in a form where we have clear, unambiguous, exacting accounts of precisely what they're responding to.

Only this time, unlike Talakeal's "agency" letter, we're starting with something that we believe is good. So we all get to evaluate how reasonable their complaints are, in the range of "oops" or "oh, I can see that" to "Bizarro World".

How the players respond to the new form of communication - and to Talakeal's dedication to improving the game through this outsourced, thought-through approach - can guide our advice going forward.

Whether Talakeal's players continue to find that indirect communication with Talakeal is more productive than direct communication or not remains to be seen.

[Cluedrew]

Cluedrew, leave it to you to go for what, to me, is the most complex example.

So… you're right. And so am I. At least, that is the potential that I am currently exploring when I claim that their behavior is (partially) about communication.That does sound like something I'd do, but actually going for something that highlights why I think communication isn't the main issue here. I suppose it could be, and it is definitely part of the problem, but there are other problems. A mess of other social problems I can't figure out from this limited second-hand perspective. Sometimes I feel like I got it, other times I have no idea, other times I worry it is way worse than Talakeal is giving it credit for. I just don't know.

But at the very least the standard of behaviour at the games seem low. I could sit here and list things that would not fly in my groups, but nothing is perfect and I'm not going to decide what bad things Talakeal should or should not consider "worth it", so I'll just mention them in the abstract. I would love to help fix them anyways, but that's beyond what we can do right now. For now just remember that they are there.

Despite how short this post is I had a lot of trouble writing it because by its nature it had to go near (but hopefully onto) some emotionally charged territory. Sorry if I crossed a line I shouldn't have.

[Quertus]

That does sound like something I'd do, but actually going for something that highlights why I think communication isn't the main issue here. I suppose it could be, and it is definitely part of the problem, but there are other problems. A mess of other social problems I can't figure out from this limited second-hand perspective. Sometimes I feel like I got it, other times I have no idea, other times I worry it is way worse than Talakeal is giving it credit for. I just don't know.

But at the very least the standard of behaviour at the games seem low. I could sit here and list things that would not fly in my groups, but nothing is perfect and I'm not going to decide what bad things Talakeal should or should not consider "worth it", so I'll just mention them in the abstract. I would love to help fix them anyways, but that's beyond what we can do right now. For now just remember that they are there.

Despite how short this post is I had a lot of trouble writing it because by its nature it had to go near (but hopefully onto) some emotionally charged territory. Sorry if I crossed a line I shouldn't have.

You are absolutely correct that there appears to be a whole lot going on, and that there's a lot of behaviors that wouldn't fly at my tables. And I don't… Hmmm… I don't *disagree* with you when you say, "I think communication isn't the main issue here", I just don't *agree* with you either - I haven't formed an opinion on the ranking of this one, but I feel that it is important, necessary, addressable, and valuable to our insight into the problem.

The "???" response to the secondhand account is part of what I'm trying to remedy with ideas like the "boxed text" plan. If we can evaluate their response to known inputs, we can more readily map the behavior of the voodoo box that is Talakeal's group.

But - and maybe I'm biased by how people respond to my earnest nature IRL - but I believe that if Talakeal demonstrates very non-Talakeal changes, if they show that they have gone so far as to contact an outside source to suggest changes to improve the environment, if they show dedication to improvement, that it will buy some social currency to… either a) at least indirectly take some pressure off these other issues while we evaluate their responses, or b) highlight these issues, when the group asks, "well, OK, but… what did they say about [insert whatever the group thinks is the actual issue]".

Also, totally my bias, but I love Talakeal's creativity (very few of my GMs homebrew anymore, and quite possibly none come up with things as cool as Talakeal does), and I'd love if Talakeal's players were in a place where they could appreciate that creativity, rather than calling shenanigans on the Sneeze Ogre, or having a meltdown over the Avatar of Hate. And the best solutions I have for these problems (other than firing Talakeal's players, which I agree may well be the best answer) involves pre-written campaign "in a sealed envelope", monster stats up front or after the encounter, and *tested*, pre-written "text boxes", available to the players (as handouts, online (preferred), etc) for all clues needed to give the players the agency to solve Talakeal's puzzles.

[Talakeal]

Thank you Quertus, I am glad that someone appreciates my creativity.

Although, to be fair, that's probably why I allow myself to be abused, I really appreciate that Brian and Bob enjoy the stuff I create, fluff and crunch respectively, and therefore put up with a lot of crap from them. Also, as a neurodiverse person, I am pretty used to people using me as a punching bag, and inadvertantly provoke a lot of such behavior.

I will say though, if people really think that lying about me and embarrassing me in front of strangers is an attempt to get me to realize my poor communication, that is absolutely the worst way to go about it. I mean, telling me they are confused and asking for clarification when it becomes apparent would be awesome, but I would really settle for people just taking notes and putting down their phones if it is that big an issue, or just chilling out and going with it if it isn't.

[Quertus]

Thank you Quertus, I am glad that someone appreciates my creativity.

Although, to be fair, that's probably why I allow myself to be abused, I really appreciate that Brian and Bob enjoy the stuff I create, fluff and crunch respectively, and therefore put up with a lot of crap from them. Also, as a neurodiverse person, I am pretty used to people using me as a punching bag, and inadvertantly provoke a lot of such behavior.

I will say though, if people really think that lying about me and embarrassing me in front of strangers is an attempt to get me to realize my poor communication, that is absolutely the worst way to go about it. I mean, telling me they are confused and asking for clarification when it becomes apparent would be awesome, but I would really settle for people just taking notes and putting down their phones if it is that big an issue, or just chilling out and going with it if it isn't.

There's quite a few things from your stories that consistently point to things about your tables that I know I'd love, the variety and creativity of the encounter building (not just the homebrew, but the doppelganger failing at pretending to be a Vampire, too) being just one of those things.

But other things, like the general atmosphere, not so much. Case in point, the aggressive negotiations.

No, it's not the optimal approach that they're taking, not at all. Although I'm not certain if it's "lying" - not only may they think it is true (from a certain point of view), but if none of your other players corrected them, either the whole group believes that it is true, or they don't have your back, which is… troubling, IMO. But, before we go too far into the weeds, I should point out that I've seen this behavior before (numerous times, actually) when people were communicating on different wavelengths, and one side grew frustrated and resorted to broad-spectrum transmission, communicating on *every* wavelength in the hopes that their signal would get through. Curiously, personal attacks like you are now receiving are difficult to ignore, no?

If the behavior *is* the result of what it looks like it could be to my 2nd-hand perspective, then it's them screaming at you to *listen*, because their previous attempts at communication have gone unheard.

Which is why I keep poking you to listen when they say "the game is too hard". Why I keep poking at every time you say, "it seems like they want X", and I respond with, "so, give them X?". Why your frequent, random rules changes that *don't* do what you want, and don't address their problems, is like putting salt in a wound ("Talakeal is willing to change the rules of the game, completely revamping rules systems, but *still* won't make the changes *I* need for the game to be fun").

If your players are behaving… Hmmm… not "reasonably", but… "predictably human", and what I'm guessing from what I'm hearing secondhand is actually accurate, then I want you to be able to be aware of it too, so that you can take steps to create more good times and cause less frustration.

Because your players really ought to appreciate all the cool things you put into your games. So I want to remove whatever obstacles to their enjoyment are preventing them from appreciating those features.

I can only guess what those obstacles are. But I *can* say that, if they're resorting to personal attacks to communicate, then it stands to reason that *they* believe that they've already communicated their grievances to you directly, and they've gone unheard. IME, the only way to get them to stop is to show that you've heard *something*, and to take drastic measures to change the way communication happens.

Thus, the stealth benefits of "white box" encounters, "text boxes" for puzzle encounters (read by someone else, and available online for them to reference as needed), and Playground-vetted changes based on their feedback from these experiments, in addition to the direct benefits that these changes could bring.

[Cluedrew]

What do you hope to learn from this? If you could line up scenario design/reaction/lesson that's great but I'm pretty sure they will just fixate on the greatest obstacle and rally against it.

[Quertus]

What do you hope to learn from this? If you could line up scenario design/reaction/lesson that's great but I'm pretty sure they will just fixate on the greatest obstacle and rally against it.

Hmmm… I guess that this question was directed at me?

If so, allow me to start by not answering your question, and answering a different set of questions instead.

How would I go about handling them rallying against the largest obstacles to their success? By removing all such obstacles. How would I do that? With my suggested "demigods of adventure" plan, to test just how close to death / failure / dishonor / second place the players actually feel comfortable walking when given the choice. (EDIT: And what their complaints look like under such circumstances)

Does my "5-point" suggested course of action solve this particular issue? Does it remove all obstacles? No. Talakeal has indicated that they want to run a "fair" game, with no unusual rules (read: "fully challenging"; see also the letter that "the sane player" interpreted with a "killer GM" response); removing all challenge would be counterproductive to their current goals. Although the players complain about difficulty often enough that *I* would prioritize testing changes to difficulty, I'll respect Talakeal's wishes to not do so this time around. So I've dropped that objective for the moment.

Does my 5-point plan "line up scenario design/reaction/lesson"? No, that's not the point.

OK, then, if that's not the point, what is? The point… well, that's complicated. So complicated, in fact, that I'll probably miss some details if I try to explain it. But here goes.

So, afaict, the biggest, longest running problem is that Talakeal games in Bizarro World. We can't give Talakeal advice (beyond "kick those players, find a new group"), because his players' actions are so nonsensical. Except… their reactions to anything where we have definitive, concrete proof of what, exactly, they're responding to? Their response to modules, and to Talakeal's "I'm a killer GM" letter are not Bizarro World - they're actually quite reasonable. So the first goal is to remove any ambiguity about what the players are responding to, even removing the tone of Talakeal's delivery by using handouts and others reading the text, to see how much Bizarro World still remains. Anywhere where there's still Bizarro World logic? That's somewhere where we need to investigate further. Anywhere where they consistently respond sanely? "Bizarro World" problem solved.

Another big problem is puzzles. There's a big disconnect between Talakeal's belief that "a big nose" is sufficient to make the sneeze Ogre "obvious in retrospect" and the player's stance of, "you just made that up"; a big disconnect between "cannot be killed by violence" translating to "cannot be killed" vs "must be killed by nonviolent means". When Talakeal presents his clues¹ to his evil overlord mandated 5-year-old advisor substitute², *they* see multiple valid solutions to the puzzle. So, the 5-point plan tests ways to remedy this as well, by providing all "boxed text" in a centralized location for review by the players. This gives us a chance to review the text before the players see it to fix the wording to reduce such ambiguity, allows the players to focus on the relevant details, and solves the (misguided, IMO) complaint of "the GM should take notes for us", all in one fell swoop.

The dichotomy of white box and puzzle monsters helps the players know when it is time to focus, helps draw their attention.

The drastic change in style clearly communicates that Talakeal is taking the issue seriously, and both buys [word] and invites feedback.

The "printed encounter stats by the end of every encounter" and "module in a sealed envelope" (created before the characters were even discussed) clearly show that Talakeal isn't making things up / targeting specific players.

I'm playing a whole orchestra of "testing for improvement" here, with each carefully chosen piece interwoven to be greater than the sum of their individual parts.

If you make many of the players' former complaints obviously false, what will they do? Will they continue to make obviously false claims? Will they complain about something else?

Perhaps we'll get lucky, and actually get to the root of the problem.

Or perhaps we'll get really lucky, and, with these new adjustments, the problems will simply go away.

But, regardless, we'll be getting feedback regarding their response to unambiguously known inputs, making our evaluation of their response much easier.

¹ and *only* those clues, not hours of gaming, or weeks of real life in-between hearing the clues and acting upon them, which biases things somewhat.
² namely, his non-gamer parents