Players characters evading direct questions

[Talakeal]

In short, does anyone have a problem with the game stalling out because the player's refuse to give direct answers to an NPCs questions?

I am currently running a Werewolf the Apocalypse / Changeling the Dreaming crossover game. Last night, the players had learned that the fomorians were planning an attack on the werewolves in Muir Woods, and were at a changeling ball trying to recruit allies. Unbenownst to the players, the Changelings also have a Freehold in Muir Woods, and would be very interested in stopping such an attack if they new about it. But every time the players asked a changeling for help, they refused to actually tell them what the Fomorians were planning, instead just saying vague things like "they are evil and in the city and are up to no good". Even though half a dozen changeling NPCs asked them directly what the fomorians were planning.

Afterward, the players walked away empty handed, and then got frustrated OOC that none of the Changelings were helpful.

This is far from the first time this has happened in my group, the players want help from an NPC, but just won't give the NPC a direct answer to their question, which basically puts the GM in the position of metagaming or stalling the plot. And its not just my group, I have noticed it in other groups as well. I remember one time I was playing in a D&D game where a warlock directly asked his patron for help, but he refused to actually tell her what the bad guys were up to, and she ended up getting so frustrated with his evasive attitude that she dragged him to hell to torture the answers out of him.

I am not great at reading people, so I am not sure why players even do this. My best guess is that either the players aren't actually paying attention to the plot and don't remember the specific details, but are too embarrassed to actually say that, or that the players are so afraid of betrayal by the NPCs that they treat everyone as if they were on a need to know basis. But those are just theories.

Anyone have any advice on how to handle this situation, or even any insight on why it keeps coming up?

[NichG]

In general: the usual thing of don't have a single line of play through which the 'plot' must proceed, and don't approach scenarios with a mindset about what's supposed to happen such that you feel that something went wrong when those things don't happen. That way 'we wanted to get these guys to be allies, but we couldn't convince them' doesn't stall the plot. It just means that now when the attack happens, there's no Changeling assistance, and game continues. If players feel it's unfair, be very direct and explicit about what they would have had to do (not framed as 'what mistake you made' but framed as 'this is the deal: they get info, you get allies') and even retcon and let them try again.

Why would a player reasonably want to be cagey? Maybe they think there could be a Fomorian spy in the room, maybe they understand that when talking to fae or fae-associated things specific wordings can get you in trouble and don't want to be caught in some binding or some technical lie or whatever, maybe they even think that if they just give the information they're losing any leverage they could use to negotiate.

Here's the thing though, knowing when to be cagey and when to be trusting isn't just an in-character thing - its about knowing the GM. I've had GMs where I'll play a character who puts their head on the metaphorical chopping block by asking an efreet 'oh, just grant me whatever wish you think I'd like', and where if I saw an encroaching group of zombies I would consider opening up with a handshake and a verbal parley because they'd just love the absurdity of it actually working and run with it. I've also had GMs I absolutely would never do that with because they're all about their own common sense and punishing deviations from it.

And that means that, in your specific case, if these are the players you've been having problems with for decades then this isn't something you can understand in the abstract about 'players in general' and fix or adjust. Because what you're seeing is likely a continuation of your ongoing table dynamic issues that periodically cause you problems - maybe this is a power play kind of thing, or you've got a player looking to provoke you into doing something wrong so they can attack you over it, or a player who was burned by something you did 10 years ago and expects you to screw them over if they give you anything at all (or even had that experience from a different GM and imported that bias to their interactions with you) or ... Generalizations aren't going to help there, its going to be down to your specific relationships with each of those specific people.

[Unoriginal]

In short, does anyone have a problem with the game stalling out because the player's refuse to give direct answers to an NPCs questions?

I am currently running a Werewolf the Apocalypse / Changeling the Dreaming crossover game. Last night, the players had learned that the fomorians were planning an attack on the werewolves in Muir Woods, and were at a changeling ball trying to recruit allies. Unbenownst to the players, the Changelings also have a Freehold in Muir Woods, and would be very interested in stopping such an attack if they new about it. But every time the players asked a changeling for help, they refused to actually tell them what the Fomorians were planning, instead just saying vague things like "they are evil and in the city and are up to no good". Even though half a dozen changeling NPCs asked them directly what the fomorians were planning.

Afterward, the players walked away empty handed, and then got frustrated OOC that none of the Changelings were helpful.

This is far from the first time this has happened in my group, the players want help from an NPC, but just won't give the NPC a direct answer to their question, which basically puts the GM in the position of metagaming or stalling the plot. And its not just my group, I have noticed it in other groups as well. I remember one time I was playing in a D&D game where a warlock directly asked his patron for help, but he refused to actually tell her what the bad guys were up to, and she ended up getting so frustrated with his evasive attitude that she dragged him to hell to torture the answers out of him.

I am not great at reading people, so I am not sure why players even do this. My best guess is that either the players aren't actually paying attention to the plot and don't remember the specific details, but are too embarrassed to actually say that, or that the players are so afraid of betrayal by the NPCs that they treat everyone as if they were on a need to know basis. But those are just theories.

Anyone have any advice on how to handle this situation, or even any insight on why it keeps coming up?

Why not just ask the players, bluntly, what they are trying to accomplish by not giving the NPCs the info?

Furthermore, I'm not familiar with Werewolf/Changeling, but there are probably a stat or skill or trait that indicates how good a PC is at reading others, right?

If that's the case, as a DM it's worth to look to the PCs who are the best at doing it and state "you can sense that [insert NPC name] won't help unless you give them something concrete to react to" or the like.

And some NPC would just ask them point blank "tell me what's happening if you want my help" of course.

Now if it's a question of the players not remembering what actually went on in enough details, then you can just ask "do you tell them everything or leave something out?" then timeskip over the "PCs explain the situation" part of the conversation.

[Vahnavoi]

I see this kind of behaviour all the time, especially in small kids and adults who didn't grow up. Multiple elements can contribute to it. In no particular order:

1) Fear of failure. The person is afraid of getting the answer wrong, either due to sense of embarrasment or due to possible punishment.

2) Anxious personality. Related to above, the importance of getting the answer right may increase pressure, leading to an anxious person to lock up.

3) Lacking vocabulary. Even if the person knows the answer, they cannot verbalize it. This may lead to roundabout or non-specific answers.

4) They are focusing on tone or emotional state of the asker, not what is being asked.

5) They are focusing too much on motive of the asker, which may lead to giving the answer the asker wants to hear rather than what's true or useful.

6) They plain do not understand the question.

7) Lacking theory of mind. The person being asked doesn't understand other people don't know what they do or don't think in the same way as them.

8) The asker is bad at asking questions. Quite a few rhetorical evasions are just means of calling out that the asker asking an impossible question, a loaded question, has unexplained premises or assumptions, or is just focusing on something irrelevant.

As a group grows in size, probability of a player falling afoul of one or more grows.

What can be done about these? Well:

1) Foster a non-judging atmosphere where even incorrect answers are welcomed. Note: you cannot consistently do this in a game where you are playing antagonist or otherwise doubtful roles.

2) Give anxious players more time to think and answer without rushing them.

3) Short term, you can try to give suggestions, though this can backfire, as it is in a sense mutually exclusive with the prior point. Long term, it can only be fixed by players conversing with more people and reading more texts with diverse vocabularies.

4) You have to watch your tone and ask questions in a way that invites answers. Note again, you cannot consistently do this in a game where you play antagonist or otherwise doubtful roles.

5) You'll have to present yourself as patient, good faith listener, which, again, you cannot consistently do in a game where you play antagonist or otherwise doubtful roles. You may think "but I wasn't playing such a role right then". Maybe, but your players remember when you did and even without much conscious thought weigh the possibility that answering straightly would weaken their position.

6) You literally have to play a simpler game first that would teach them how to form and recognize the sort of questions they have to be answering.

7) First you have to ask and answer yourself a question: are you playing with people who are neurologically atypical or have other psychological issues? If the answer is yes, don't expect getting over this to be easy. Beyond that, consider: you know what the fomorians are doing and the players know you know what the fomorians are doing. You are simply pretending to be someone who doesnt know, possibly unconvincingly, and your players are pretending to answer to someone who doesn't know. There's nothing natural about this and a lot of moving parts to it that can go wrong. Due to hindsight bias, it is difficult to act like you don't know something you already know. It is possible that simultaneously your players underexplain the plan to you since they presume you'll fill in the gaps and you are overcorrecting to play the asking character as more clueless and less helpfull to give the impression that they know less than you do.

8) Think carefully of how, exactly, you are asking. This goes together with points 4) and 5). "What evil plans?" becomes a different question depending on delivery. Make an error, and what was meant to be an honest question will sound like a rhetorical one expressing doubt at the existence of any evil plans.

Finally, people suck at things they don't practice. If a person, in their real life, never has to think and answer questions such as "what is the enemy planning to do?", they won't magically become good at it for a game. Which is why, again, play a simpler game first. Whip out Twenty Questions and practice asking relevant, limited scope questions and deducing information from the answers.

[Mastikator]

I agree with Unoriginal. If the players need to give exact answers to an NPC in order to gain their help and they are just utterly refusing, ask them OOC why they won't tell the changeling that the fomorians are planning an attack on the werewolves in the muir woods.

Another option is bring it up one level of abstraction, instead of the players talking in characters they can just state their intentions and then you narrate how the PCs tell the changelings what the fomorians are planning, and that convinces the changelings to help. Then bring it down again and have the changeling ask in person what the plan is- how the changeling can help, or better yet, the changeling proposes two plans which the players can choose from (they can always choose a third option of their own device, but generally players only surprise the DM when the DM isn't expecting it :smallamused: ).

[GloatingSwine]

Anyone have any advice on how to handle this situation, or even any insight on why it keeps coming up?

You need to communicate your expectations clearly. If your NPCs need more information have them ask specific probing questions intended to elicit that information. And match that to the players' goals as well. The players' goal is to get the Changelings to do something.

In this situation they probably shouldn't be asking about the Fomorians' plan, they should be asking specifically what the players want them to do, and then stating their price for doing it.

[King of Nowhere]

In short, does anyone have a problem with the game stalling out because the player's refuse to give direct answers to an NPCs questions?


no, never


the players want help from an NPC, but just won't give the NPC a direct answer to their question, which basically puts the GM in the position of metagaming or stalling the plot.

the problem is, this should not stall the game or "force the dm to stall the plot". so the players failed to get allies, so what? the game goes on. if you just stop the game until the players succeed in allying with the changelings, you are railroading the game. if you stop the game until the players ally with the changelings by telling them the plan of the fomorians, you are doubly railroading: once because you want the players to ally with the changelings, and once because you want them to do it in a specific way.

i had instances where the players don't trust an npc (though my players tend to be on the trusting side), or otherwise fail to secure allies. the game goes on, simple as that. have the fomorians attack the changelings next session, while the players failed to secure their alliance.

[Kish]

They don't trust. Either they don't trust the NPCs or they don't trust you.

[Talakeal]

And that means that, in your specific case, if these are the players you've been having problems with for decades then this isn't something you can understand in the abstract about 'players in general' and fix or adjust. Because what you're seeing is likely a continuation of your ongoing table dynamic issues that periodically cause you problems - maybe this is a power play kind of thing, or you've got a player looking to provoke you into doing something wrong so they can attack you over it, or a player who was burned by something you did 10 years ago and expects you to screw them over if they give you anything at all (or even had that experience from a different GM and imported that bias to their interactions with you) or ... Generalizations aren't going to help there, its going to be down to your specific relationships with each of those specific people.

I have played in lots of groups, and my main group has cycled through a lot of players over the years, and this is something that I have seen come up again and again, and many times I was not directly involved.

For example, the scenario in my OP about the warlock refusing to answer his patron's questions happened in a game in which I was a player, but I was not the warlock of the GM, and I was not personally involved, nor were any of my long time players.

Heck, I have even noticed this phenomenon come up more than a few times in "professional" APs, such as Matt Colville's Chain of Acheron or Fear the Boot's Skies of Glass.


In general: the usual thing of don't have a single line of play through which the 'plot' must proceed, and don't approach scenarios with a mindset about what's supposed to happen such that you feel that something went wrong when those things don't happen. That way 'we wanted to get these guys to be allies, but we couldn't convince them' doesn't stall the plot. It just means that now when the attack happens, there's no Changeling assistance, and game continues. If players feel it's unfair, be very direct and explicit about what they would have had to do (not framed as 'what mistake you made' but framed as 'this is the deal: they get info, you get allies') and even retcon and let them try again.

That is more or less what ended up happening.

It still ended up with my players being frustrated at their inability to find any allies and me being baffled as to why they wouldn't / couldn't just answer a direct question no matter how many NPCs asked.


You need to communicate your expectations clearly. If your NPCs need more information have them ask specific probing questions intended to elicit that information. And match that to the players' goals as well. The players' goal is to get the Changelings to do something.

This right here is the problem. The NPCs were asking very specific probing questions, and the players were continually blowing them off. That is the crux of the issue.


In this situation they probably shouldn't be asking about the Fomorians' plan, they should be asking specifically what the players want them to do, and then stating their price for doing it.

The players wanted the changelings to storm the formorian nest in the city, but never offered them any reason why they should want to do this, and furthermore they were very insistent that they had nothing to offer the changelings in exchange.


the problem is, this should not stall the game or "force the dm to stall the plot". so the players failed to get allies, so what? the game goes on. if you just stop the game until the players succeed in allying with the changelings, you are railroading the game. if you stop the game until the players ally with the changelings by telling them the plan of the fomorians, you are doubly railroading: once because you want the players to ally with the changelings, and once because you want them to do it in a specific way.

I agree.

But there is a, hopefully, a middle ground between spoon-feeding the players the correct answer and giving them a hint / a chance to recover from their mistakes.

Failure frustrates players as much as railroading does (probably far more in reality, although railroading is more of a boogeyman online), and I don't really think its crossing a line to ask the players if they are sure they want to do something reckless, remind them if they have forgotten a plan, or have a convenient NPC ask pointed questions.

Especially in this particular case were the players "plan B" is basically committing an act of mass terrorism and killing thousands of bystanders, including many of their friends and families.

[icefractal]

Fear of saying too much and having it bite them in the ass is a big one. And this fear doesn't even have to come from your game, it can come from other games they've played or just the general zeitgeist. I mean, we all know those amusing stories about players who blabbed something big to "obviously" the wrong NPC, with disastrous results, right? I'm not going to say it's wrong to have those stories, but keep in mind that every player reading one of them is potentially a player who's going to clam up and tell NPCs as little as possible.

I mean heck, that's happened to me and it wasn't fun. We're infiltrating a facility, one of the PCs tells the wrong person our purpose there (played by someone new to the campaign, so a very understandable mistake), and as a result of that plus other mistakes, we fail and bad things happen to the campaign world. Maybe for someone with a more "losing is fun" attitude it'd be fine, but for me it's just made me bummed out and reluctant to continue that saga.

As for what to do about that? IDK - making it more black-and-white who's an enemy and who's a potential ally could help, but that does limit the campaign concepts.

[NichG]

That is more or less what ended up happening.

It still ended up with my players being frustrated at their inability to find any allies and me being baffled as to why they wouldn't / couldn't just answer a direct question no matter how many NPCs asked.


These two sentences don't make sense together.

Did you say explicitly: "Okay lets try this again. The changelings need to know everything you know about the Fomorian attack before they will help you. If you tell them, they will help you. If you do not tell them, they will not help you. Do you tell them or not?". Did one of your players then say "No we don't tell them." but then be surprised that no, they wouldn't ally?

Or did you just imply that the Changelings wanted to know more?

[GloatingSwine]

This right here is the problem. The NPCs were asking very specific probing questions, and the players were continually blowing them off. That is the crux of the issue.

The players wanted the changelings to storm the formorian nest in the city, but never offered them any reason why they should want to do this, and furthermore they were very insistent that they had nothing to offer the changelings in exchange.


This is where the Changelings should be naming their price though. If the Changelings had specific knowledge of what was being asked of them, but no knowledge that they stand to benefit from doing it, then they should be telling the players what their aid will cost. Which should probably be some kind of equivalent service in future that cannot be refused.

The fact that the players didn't use the information they had as leverage then just means they paid more than they had to, or found the price too high and walked on the deal, but at least you put a deal on the table in front of them.

And then you could ask them OOC why they didn't use their information.

[Talakeal]

These two sentences don't make sense together.

Did you say explicitly: "Okay lets try this again. The changelings need to know everything you know about the Fomorian attack before they will help you. If you tell them, they will help you. If you do not tell them, they will not help you. Do you tell them or not?". Did one of your players then say "No we don't tell them." but then be surprised that no, they wouldn't ally?

Or did you just imply that the Changelings wanted to know more?

The players are children who found out that their tenement building is home to a pack of black spiral dancer werewolves who are turning its residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the garou in Muir Woods.
One of the children is a changeling, and they decided to ask the local Seelie court for help.
The players do not know that the Seelie court have a freehold in Muir Woods.
The players ask the Seelie to come and kill the werewolves in their building.
The Seelie ask, very specifically, what the fomori are planning.
If the players had mentioned an attack on Muir Woods, they would have been alerted to the threat to their freehold.
The players just gave very broad generalities, saying that they were evil and they were in the city and that should be enough.
The changelings said that it wasn't their fight and they had no reason to get involved.
The players then decided to go back to plan B, finding a way to blow a high rise tenement building in the middle of San Francisco in which most of their friends and families live.
I asked them if they were sure they wanted to go down this route, and then they complained that they had no choice because the Seelie were being unreasonable.
The players ended up frustrated, I ended up baffled, and next session is going to go in a very different direction than I thought with them trying to make a deal with some unseelie goblins to blow up the building.


I am kind of confused about whether you are advocating:
A: The GM playing it straight and letting the story develop naturally to avoid railroading.
B: The GM breaking character, telling the players what they need to do, and ret-conning the situation for the desired result.



This is where the Changelings should be naming their price though. If the Changelings had specific knowledge of what was being asked of them, but no knowledge that they stand to benefit from doing it, then they should be telling the players what their aid will cost. Which should probably be some kind of equivalent service in future that cannot be refused.

The fact that the players didn't use the information they had as leverage then just means they paid more than they had to, or found the price too high and walked on the deal, but at least you put a deal on the table in front of them.

And then you could ask them OOC why they didn't use their information.

The players made it very clear that they were offering absolutely nothing to the fey and were expecting them to attack the fomorians out of the goodness of their heart because "the Seelie are good guys and destroying evil is what good guys do."

The few fey who asked about payment were very bluntly shut down, because the players are more than a little paranoid about actually making a deal with the fey and being bound to a promise they didn't intent to make, and they were very explicit that, as children, they both would not and could not pay the fey for their help.

[Cactus]

An alternative approach could be to have the seelie outline the kind of situation they would be willing to get involved in. "If you have knowledge the werewolves are planning something specific we might be more interested" should be enough to prompt a reasonable player to think "Hey, we do know something. They're going to attack Muir Wood." If they give up this information the Seelie can explain about their settlement and an alliance should follow.

[icefractal]

In this case, part of the problem was that the players don't know the fey care about Muir woods. So (if these are city-dwelling fey) they might assume that conveying this information would be negative to their cause.

Compare:
"Your majesty, we need all your elite knights to shut down a demon cult that's operating inside your kingdom."
"Your majesty, we need all your elite knights to shut down a demon cult that's using your kingdom as a staging ground to launch an attack on another kingdom you're not allies with."

While kinda forced, it might have helped to make the fey lead by example by over-sharing. Something like:
"You say we need to stop this, but are they attacking [current location]? Are they attacking Muir woods? Are they attacking [some other place]? No? Then how exactly is it our responsibility to deal with?"

[NichG]

The players are children who found out that their tenement building is home to a pack of black spiral dancer werewolves who are turning its residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the garou in Muir Woods.
One of the children is a changeling, and they decided to ask the local Seelie court for help.
The players do not know that the Seelie court have a freehold in Muir Woods.
The players ask the Seelie to come and kill the werewolves in their building.
The Seelie ask, very specifically, what the fomori are planning.
If the players had mentioned an attack on Muir Woods, they would have been alerted to the threat to their freehold.
The players just gave very broad generalities, saying that they were evil and they were in the city and that should be enough.
The changelings said that it wasn't their fight and they had no reason to get involved.
The players then decided to go back to plan B, finding a way to blow a high rise tenement building in the middle of San Francisco in which most of their friends and families live.
I asked them if they were sure they wanted to go down this route, and then they complained that they had no choice because the Seelie were being unreasonable.
The players ended up frustrated, I ended up baffled, and next session is going to go in a very different direction than I thought with them trying to make a deal with some unseelie goblins to blow up the building.


Yeah that's not actually like what I said... Its not 'are you sure?', its 'Okay this is explicitly why the Seelie are refusing. Also I am telling you explicitly OOC that if you give them the info they're asking for, they will help.' Don't leave room for a misunderstanding of what's needed or what will happen.



I am kind of confused about whether you are advocating:
A: The GM playing it straight and letting the story develop naturally to avoid railroading.
B: The GM breaking character, telling the players what they need to do, and ret-conning the situation for the desired result.


In this case, I'm advocating trying B, because you described an out of character sense of frustration that you and particular players are having. Solve OOC problems out of character.

Specifically, you have evidence that there's a serious failure of communication going on at the table. Someone, probably everyone, is not understanding each other and what the actual situation is. Or maybe someone is being intentionally dense. But as long as you're trying to use IC behaviors and tells and stuff, you're leaving room for this kind of misunderstanding and frustration. So yes, break character, and say, as explicitly as you possibly can: 'Hey guys, the Changelings are saying no because you're refusing to give them information. They would say yes if you gave them the information. Does that deal work for you? If no, why don't you want to give them the information?'

You might discover that the players thought they did give them the information! You might discover that the players mistrust them! But if you don't actually dumb it down so much and sit on the point until it is 100% clear and resolved, you'll never know.

So if you actually want to know why this keeps happening and be able to do something about it, that becomes more important than maintaining the immersion or challenge of that particular in character situation.

[Talakeal]

Yeah that's not actually like what I said... Its not 'are you sure?', its 'Okay this is explicitly why the Seelie are refusing. Also I am telling you explicitly OOC that if you give them the info they're asking for, they will help.' Don't leave room for a misunderstanding of what's needed or what will happen.



In this case, I'm advocating trying B, because you described an out of character sense of frustration that you and particular players are having. Solve OOC problems out of character.

Specifically, you have evidence that there's a serious failure of communication going on at the table. Someone, probably everyone, is not understanding each other and what the actual situation is. Or maybe someone is being intentionally dense. But as long as you're trying to use IC behaviors and tells and stuff, you're leaving room for this kind of misunderstanding and frustration. So yes, break character, and say, as explicitly as you possibly can: 'Hey guys, the Changelings are saying no because you're refusing to give them information. They would say yes if you gave them the information. Does that deal work for you? If no, why don't you want to give them the information?'

You might discover that the players thought they did give them the information! You might discover that the players mistrust them! But if you don't actually dumb it down so much and sit on the point until it is 100% clear and resolved, you'll never know.

So if you actually want to know why this keeps happening and be able to do something about it, that becomes more important than maintaining the immersion or challenge of that particular in character situation.

Ok, I think I got you.

I was more responding to:


In general: the usual thing of don't have a single line of play through which the 'plot' must proceed, and don't approach scenarios with a mindset about what's supposed to happen such that you feel that something went wrong when those things don't happen. That way 'we wanted to get these guys to be allies, but we couldn't convince them' doesn't stall the plot. It just means that now when the attack happens, there's no Changeling assistance, and game continues.

As being what happened. I didn't have a single line of play, they wanted changeling allies but didn't get them, and the game continued in a different direction.



Actually breaking character and telling the PCs: "If you do X, Y will happen" is kind of a last resort, as it shatters both immersion and a sense of challenge. At that point, I feel like it is less of an RPG and more of a collaborative storytelling activity or something.

And this was hardly a "break glass in case of emergency" situation.

Mostly, I am just freaking baffled about why PCs refuse to spill the beans so often.

[Slipjig]

I've definitely seen this happen at my table. A lot of players seem to always default to lying, even when telling the truth would absolutely be to their advantage. I'm not really sure what the fix is, other than maybe having a friendly NPC pull a character aside and say, "Is there any reason you aren't telling them X?"

Of course, plenty of DMs also run NPCs as needlessly cagey. I've gotten to the point where I'm perfectly happy to say to questgivers, "Look, I'm not having any of that 'Cryptic Jedi' bull****. If you refuse to answer basic questions about the job, we're walking away."

If you think the PCs are being needlessly cagey, have one of the NPCs get exasperated and say some variation on the above to them. Or possibly have one of them say something that makes it clear exactly what might get them motivated. In the case of your WoD game, maybe one of the Changelings says, "I'm sorry, Old Bean, but it's nothing to us what some fomori get up to in the city!" If the players don't pick up on that cue, have them make an Insight/Manipulation check to realize that he just implied they WOULD care about the fomori getting up to things in other places.

[Jay R]

Advice for the specific situation:

Decide when the changelings find out about the attack some other way, and when they eventually charge in. When it's over, they can ask the PCs why they didn't tell the changelings the attack was coming.

In the ideal game, the PCs and changelings do actually win, but the PCs wind up less rewarded than they would have been if they had told them. Possibly there is a party of NPCs who tell the changelings, and get some fun magic items or buffs from the changelings for the battle.

Later, the DM can point out to the players that if you want to convince people, you need to give them the convincing facts.

One other comment, from my "Rules for DMs" document:

48. For the players to be free to be clever, they must be free to be stupid. For them to be free to make the right decision, they must be free to make the wrong decision. Either way, it’s the freedom to make the choice for their PCs.

a. If you carefully prevent them from making any mistakes, then you’re the one who’s playing the characters.
b. This can require careful judgment calls. Find a way to prevent them from making TPK-causing errors based on no information. Don’t bother to keep them from losing their pumpkins.

[Telok]

I've got something somewhat similar in that several of my players have adverse reactions to npcs with any form of authority and get really abrasive about it. To the point where "my blowing up the police is showing that they aren't strong enough and they should thank me for it" was something actually said with a straight face (they are now rightly wanted on terrorism charges). They'll lie, insult, murder, run away, and generally do anything except talk to any authority figure. Even the ones that actually started out liking them and wanting to help them.

Its like... I can run a game where they're scum and villian outlaws. But give me some warning and a direction you want to go before just blowing up buildings on video and claiming its not your fault that everyone inside died. It doesn't help that they all also always go with the "dumpstat charisma" trope characters who have a hard time convincing people of anything.

[ciopo]

It could maybe be a matter of presentation

Here is a recent example from my thursday campaign :

Us, the party, are doing a multi-stage fetch quest to resurrect the guardian beast of a temple, that temple is sealing some big evil thing, and without the guardian beast the monks lifeforce itself is consumed to keep the seal up, the timeline is very strict.

We passed by that temple for unrelated reasons, but a mcguffin urn turned out to be related to this place, and contains the ashes of the guardian beast. Abbot was ready for us and tries with a true resurrection scroll, but fails, plot happens and in short we need to obtain "waters of life" and a cauldron of resurrection, only that combo of stuff is strong enough to resurrect the guardian beast.

Stuff happens, we obtain the waters of life, we adventure a little to get the cash to be lent a cauldron of resurrection form one of the major churchs ( they have monopoly on those kind of resurrection services ).


So, pertinent to the thread, we go to the church of the deity most likely to be mercenary about lending out the magic item, the Church of Abadar, god of wealth and commerce and other stuff.

The cleric we talk with is insistent about knowing what/who we want the cauldron of resurrection for.


Like, GM at a point straight up tell us "how much do you tell him?"

That? that's uncomfortable to answer, it feels like a set up for a double cross or the church milking us for extra money, because there is a time limit of a sort etcetera etcetera.


We end up telling him not the circumstances but that the creature we are to resurrect is the guardian beast of (TEMPLE X) , also known as the mount/companion of (mythological figure in the setting)

session ends with the plot twist/dramatic reveal that said mount is a beast ascended to divinity within the setting, the patron of griffins and snake-dragons ( more or less Kukulkan adapted )


I still don't know if revealing who we want to resurrect was a good idea or not. We were being cagey about revealing stuff, even if nominally we shouldn't have had any reason to doubt that cleric/his church.


In general, especially when it comes to some kind of transaction such as my example and possibly your changeling example, if I as a player ask for help / a service / something like that , where I'm prepared to pay for the service or whatever, then if whoever I'm asking for help asks me "what for?" the gut reaction is "none of your busyness". And the more you ask me to tell you my intentions the more I feel uncomfortable about telling you more details.

The above cleric of Abadar conversation, it was a back and forth, I dont' remember the specific, but like, after I said, without lying, "the guardian beast of a lawful-good aligned temple", in my mind that was more or less all he needed to know, and when I say we'd like to have the cauldorn rented to us, I specifically said rent, not "borrow", it was clear we would pay for the service ( there is no ambiguity in the verb used in Italian )

[Mastikator]

I've got something somewhat similar in that several of my players have adverse reactions to npcs with any form of authority and get really abrasive about it. To the point where "my blowing up the police is showing that they aren't strong enough and they should thank me for it" was something actually said with a straight face (they are now rightly wanted on terrorism charges). They'll lie, insult, murder, run away, and generally do anything except talk to any authority figure. Even the ones that actually started out liking them and wanting to help them.

Its like... I can run a game where they're scum and villian outlaws. But give me some warning and a direction you want to go before just blowing up buildings on video and claiming its not your fault that everyone inside died. It doesn't help that they all also always go with the "dumpstat charisma" trope characters who have a hard time convincing people of anything.

It's not unusual for this phenomenon to show up on this board, by that I mean players (and especially GMs) describing this happening at their table. I've also seen it at many of the tables top groups I've played with over the decades. It reminds me of a thing that was said by Spock in Star Trek (the original show from 60 years ago), in the episode Mirror Mirror.


In the episode there is a transporter malfunction and Kirk is sent to an evil parallel universe, where is counterpart is sent to his universe. In the episode we see how he copes and quickly takes on the role of a barbarian to easily hide the fact that he's an impostor. Eventually he's able to get back to his own universe. There he discovers that his evil counterpart was immediately discovered. A question is posed why he was able to get away but his counterpart (who is exactly the same, but evil) was so easily discovered.

Spock says this: " It was far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men"

This is something I think applies to RPGs as well.

I'm going to use an example from my real life here, we made a one-shot game where each player's character was designed by the group. The goal was to challenge each player, get them to try something completely different than what they usually do. It was a mixed result. Specifically with the two players who always seem to make evil characters, they just couldn't figure out how to play as good characters.

I guess my aesop is: don't expect players to do things they are incapable of. If a player lacks integrity don't expect their characters to have integrity. If a player can't take responsibility for their actions don't expect their characters to either.
And I don't think you can fix them. Accept them for the murder-hobos they are, or boot them from your game.

[GloatingSwine]

The players made it very clear that they were offering absolutely nothing to the fey and were expecting them to attack the fomorians out of the goodness of their heart because "the Seelie are good guys and destroying evil is what good guys do."

Sounds like they have nothing to offer.

They're poor kids from the projects with no material or spiritual resources and no pertinent information, and you expect them to say something they have no reason to know is relevant. If they don't know the Changelings have any interests in the Muir Woods they have no reason to mention them. And they're in this situation because they have faulty (out of character, it sounds like) expectations of the nature of the Seelie court as romantic crusaders against evil in all its forms.

Except you don't expect this to be their induction into the Unseelie, despite the situation as you described being almost custom designed to produce that outcome! Seriously, this is a starting story for a group to be inducted into the Unseelie court after seeing the selfish hypocrisy of the Seelie not acting except for their own. (Honour is a lie, writ large in their lives)

Your social scene was just the players being asked for a password when they didn't know the password and they didn't even know that the password could ever have existed or been learned.

[Unoriginal]

Ok, I think I got you.

I was more responding to:



As being what happened. I didn't have a single line of play, they wanted changeling allies but didn't get them, and the game continued in a different direction.



Actually breaking character and telling the PCs: "If you do X, Y will happen" is kind of a last resort, as it shatters both immersion and a sense of challenge. At that point, I feel like it is less of an RPG and more of a collaborative storytelling activity or something.

And this was hardly a "break glass in case of emergency" situation.

Mostly, I am just freaking baffled about why PCs refuse to spill the beans so often.

Imagine you're GMing a campaign and the players acquired an anti-dragon sword, and know it has special dragon-slaying powers. Just after that, you state they are attacked by a dragon, who doesn't want people with anti-dragon swords roaming around.

Yet, despite the dragon whaling on them, none of the players do anything with the sword, specifically chosing other options each time.

As a GM, I would ask my players *why* they are not using the sword.

It's not a question of just telling them "you need to do X to have Y", but if the players are withholding something that would help them and they haven't told you why they're doing it, asking is paramount.

Also have to point out that "the Seelie are the good guys, so they should risk life and limbs fighting on our behalf for free" and "We're afraid of accidentally making a deal by saying too much to the Seelie" are two beliefs pretty at odd with each other. Maybe there is something about the lore the players have misunderstood or forgotten?

[Vyke]

The players are children who found out that their tenement building is home to a pack of black spiral dancer werewolves who are turning its residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the garou in Muir Woods.
One of the children is a changeling, and they decided to ask the local Seelie court for help.
The players do not know that the Seelie court have a freehold in Muir Woods.
The players ask the Seelie to come and kill the werewolves in their building.
The Seelie ask, very specifically, what the fomori are planning.
If the players had mentioned an attack on Muir Woods, they would have been alerted to the threat to their freehold.
The players just gave very broad generalities, saying that they were evil and they were in the city and that should be enough.
The changelings said that it wasn't their fight and they had no reason to get involved.
The players then decided to go back to plan B, finding a way to blow a high rise tenement building in the middle of San Francisco in which most of their friends and families live.
I asked them if they were sure they wanted to go down this route, and then they complained that they had no choice because the Seelie were being unreasonable.
The players ended up frustrated, I ended up baffled, and next session is going to go in a very different direction than I thought with them trying to make a deal with some unseelie goblins to blow up the building.


I am kind of confused about whether you are advocating:
A: The GM playing it straight and letting the story develop naturally to avoid railroading.
B: The GM breaking character, telling the players what they need to do, and ret-conning the situation for the desired result.




The players made it very clear that they were offering absolutely nothing to the fey and were expecting them to attack the fomorians out of the goodness of their heart because "the Seelie are good guys and destroying evil is what good guys do."

The few fey who asked about payment were very bluntly shut down, because the players are more than a little paranoid about actually making a deal with the fey and being bound to a promise they didn't intent to make, and they were very explicit that, as children, they both would not and could not pay the fey for their help.

I'm kind of with you on the confusion here. If you offer a bad deal it may not get accepted.

It might be worth having a representative of the Court going back to them, someone who sees the potentially brokering a deal as advantageous to them, and saying something absolutely explicit like "When you visited us you declined to give details of your expectations. Perhaps you were overwhelmed by the presence of so many of the Court and perhaps you were wary of betrayal. I am here to get your precise expectations and then I will tell you what our support costs. Without specifics we can't come to an agreement. If we can't come to an arrangement then, fine, we wish you the best of luck. You must understand it's not personal. We simply can't risk our people when it's not our fight without suitable recompense. We have commitments to other battles that you are unaware of and our attention on your issue risks a loss of attention elsewhere."

Other than that, dunno, all you can do is ask them....

Actually something has occurred to me. When your players think of success in a social encounter do they see success as "The other group agreed to meet our expectations for a price we find acceptable" or "The other group agreed to fulfil all our needs at no cost to cost to us"? Because the latter, total conversion to the players' viewpoint, is far less common an acceptable mutual compromise.

[GloatingSwine]

You must understand it's not personal. We simply can't risk our people when it's not our fight without suitable recompense. We have commitments to other battles that you are unaware of and our attention on your issue risks a loss of attention elsewhere."


The thing is Talakeal is expecting the players to give information that the Court will use to understand that it is their fight, but the players don't know the information means that, so they can't possibly know that they should be saying it.

They're being asked for a password they don't know is the password, obliquely enough that they don't even know they're being asked for a password, and Talakeal is wondering why they are evading direct questions!

The only way they "answer" the question is just by spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident.

[Vahnavoi]

I've got something somewhat similar in that several of my players have adverse reactions to npcs with any form of authority and get really abrasive about it. To the point where "my blowing up the police is showing that they aren't strong enough and they should thank me for it" was something actually said with a straight face (they are now rightly wanted on terrorism charges). They'll lie, insult, murder, run away, and generally do anything except talk to any authority figure. Even the ones that actually started out liking them and wanting to help them.

Ah, the contrarian, a classic and underappreciated player archetype. :smallamused:

Be thankful if they only do this in a game. Worst examples extend their authority problems to the game master.

---


I guess my aesop is: don't expect players to do things they are incapable of. If a player lacks integrity don't expect their characters to have integrity. If a player can't take responsibility for their actions don't expect their characters to either.
And I don't think you can fix them. Accept them for the murder-hobos they are, or boot them from your game.

Oh, it may be possible to fix them. If the root reason is that they're kids, they may just grow out of it on their own. If they're teenagers or young adults with no severe underlying neurological or psychological issues, it is possible to teach them and - good news! - games can be used as a medium for teaching them.

The bad news is that the timespan is usually measured in years.

[Batcathat]

The thing is Talakeal is expecting the players to give information that the Court will use to understand that it is their fight, but the players don't know the information means that, so they can't possibly know that they should be saying it.

They're being asked for a password they don't know is the password, obliquely enough that they don't even know they're being asked for a password, and Talakeal is wondering why they are evading direct questions!

The only way they "answer" the question is just by spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident.

I mean, I can sort of understand the players in this situation but saying that "revealing more about the situation at hand" equals "spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident" seems like quite a stretch.

As for the problem itself, I've certainly experienced players being a little too cautious/paranoid for their own good, but I don't think it's been the default among people I've played with. If I was the GM in this situation, I would probably just let it play out (the characters can be unnecessarily paranoid too) and maybe mention it afterwards to possibly avoid the situation in the future (then again, in the future revealing too much might be the wrong choice, so y'know... :smalltongue:)

Of course, if the issue is that they don't actually remember the details, that's a different problem entirely.

[Vyke]

The thing is Talakeal is expecting the players to give information that the Court will use to understand that it is their fight, but the players don't know the information means that, so they can't possibly know that they should be saying it.

They're being asked for a password they don't know is the password, obliquely enough that they don't even know they're being asked for a password, and Talakeal is wondering why they are evading direct questions!

The only way they "answer" the question is just by spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident.

I get that, that's why the new NPC needs to be really explicit about wanting details. And if they can't form an agreement then the attack lands as it does. Maybe the Seelie then turn up after ground has been lost and ask "Why didn't you tell us it was happening here. We'd have supported you as neighbours." There have been any numbers of potential alliances both real life and fiction that have been hindered by bad communication. And when you're going cap in hand to ask for help... the onus is on you to make the dialogue work.

This is the gameplay in this encounter. If the Seelie will just rush out and do whatever some random kids say then there's no point to the encounter. The social challenge in this encounter is for the players to realise that the shared location is the lever they need to pull to make reinforcements fall out. They do know where the attack is going to fall. They have the "password" if you like. Maybe they say it because the know there's a freehold, maybe they say it because they realise that without being willing to extend that trust they won't get the reinforcements*. Doesn't matter. If they don't... then they've failed to succeed that social encounter and they'll have to find other allies or figure out another solution. Which is fine. That's where the game goes.

*Of course being the side that extends trust first when you go cap in hand for support inherently makes you the weaker partner in discussion. They may not like the idea of being vulnerable in that way. But that's a different problem and pride causes its own issues.

[GloatingSwine]

This is the gameplay in this encounter. If the Seelie will just rush out and do whatever some random kids say then there's no point to the encounter. The social challenge in this encounter is for the players to realise that the shared location is the lever they need to pull to make reinforcements fall out. They do know where the attack is going to fall. They have the "password" if you like. Maybe they say it because the know there's a freehold, maybe they say it because they realise that without being willing to extend that trust they won't get the reinforcements*. Doesn't matter. If they don't... then they've failed to succeed that social encounter and they'll have to find other allies or figure out another solution. Which is fine. That's where the game goes.

They don't know about the freehold though, they don't know there is a shared location. That's why I say the only way they could produce the password is at random, just spooling out every piece of information they possess without any intentionality because they don't know what, if any, of it is relevant.

They're also not asking for the Court to go to and defend Muir Woods, they're asking them to assault the Fomorians in their base which is in the tenement the characters live in. Muir Woods is not relevant to their request.

They "have" the password, but they don't and can't know they're being asked for a password because they don't have the context that lets them percieve that.


I mean, I can sort of understand the players in this situation but saying that "revealing more about the situation at hand" equals "spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident" seems like quite a stretch.


It's at random because they don't have the context that lets them know what is and is not relevant. They have no way to measure and decide what information is going to help and what isn't.

[KorvinStarmast]

They don't trust. Either they don't trust the NPCs or they don't trust you. Most likely root cause. The why may vary.

Sounds like they have nothing to offer.

They're poor kids from the projects with no material or spiritual resources and no pertinent information, and you expect them to say something they have no reason to know is relevant. If they don't know the Changelings have any interests in the Muir Woods they have no reason to mention them. And they're in this situation because they have faulty (out of character, it sounds like) expectations of the nature of the Seelie court as romantic crusaders against evil in all its forms.

Except you don't expect this to be their induction into the Unseelie, despite the situation as you described being almost custom designed to produce that outcome! Seriously, this is a starting story for a group to be inducted into the Unseelie court after seeing the selfish hypocrisy of the Seelie not acting except for their own. (Honour is a lie, writ large in their lives)

Your social scene was just the players being asked for a password when they didn't know the password and they didn't even know that the password could ever have existed or been learned.

If the players have various experiences with "gotcha" GMing, that will inform their reaction. It takes coaching, as a GM, to sometimes get past that. It also takes, to follow up on the point Kish made, establishing a trust relationship.

Talakeal:
It may be that you play mostly with people (based on your many experience-based posts) who have zero or low social skills...a situation that puts the fun into dysfunctional but not in a satisfying way. :smallannoyed:
I have learned to leave groups like that.

[Vyke]

They don't know about the freehold though, they don't know there is a shared location. That's why I say the only way they could produce the password is at random, just spooling out every piece of information they possess without any intentionality because they don't know what, if any, of it is relevant.

They "have" the password, but they don't and can't know they're being asked for a password because they don't have the context that lets them percieve that.

"Look we'd like your help in fighting some werewolves and fomori. We don't know the number but we have done some scouting and we do know they plan to attack a place called Muir Wood. Since we know where it is we can combine our forces and ambush them, hopefully minimising our own causalities. Or we know where they lair so we can attack them in their own home, a tenement block not far from here. We're happy to discuss what resources we can bring to the fight if you have anyone near by that can support it."

"Hmmmm. Muir wood. Yes, I think my superiors might be interested in such an alliance. As neighbours we would be happy to stand by you if you would stand by us in the future. Nothing that would make you uncomfortable, of course."

And that there, is a seed of a future adventure.

They aren't being asked to say random words until they accidentally give a password. They are being asked to state clearly what they know about the threat. The Seelie want to know what is happening and what the players want them to get themselves into. As far as we're aware (Talakeal, correct me if I'm wrong) this might be one of the few things they specifically know to be the case. They don't know how much the Seelie care about it but they are 100% going to have to tell them where it is at some point anyway if only to get their allies where they need to be.

And if they don't... no problem. Just a harder fight with no allies. Maybe a fight they lose.

It's not unreasonable. This is the conflict that needs to be resolved in the scene. How would you do it? Have the Seelie go "Oh no we couldn't possibly risk our people unless they're attacking Muir wood, the site of our secret freehold. Where did you say they were attacking?"

[Vyke]

If the players have various experiences with "gotcha" GMing, that will inform their reaction. It takes coaching, as a GM, to sometimes get past that. It also takes, to follow up on the point Kish made, establishing a trust relationship.

Talakeal:
It may be that you play mostly with people (based on your many experience-based posts) who have zero or low social skills...a situation that puts the fun into dysfunctional but not in a satisfying way. :smallannoyed:
I have learned to leave groups like that.

Oh yeah, absolutely. Talakeal, if they do open up to the Seelie absolutely do not have them get betrayed for opening up the information. :)

[Batcathat]

It's at random because they don't have the context that lets them know what is and is not relevant. They have no way to measure and decide what information is going to help and what isn't.

Telling people more about the situation you're asking them to help out with isn't really random behavior though. Now, there can be reasons not to do it or reasons not to think to do it, but doing it isn't exactly out there.

[GloatingSwine]

Telling people more about the situation you're asking them to help out with isn't really random behavior though. Now, there can be reasons not to do it or reasons not to think to do it, but doing it isn't exactly out there.

"The situation" they're asking for help with though is that there's a nest of Fomorians in their actual home. They're not just trying to protect Muir Woods, they're trying to eradicate the source.

They are actually better served by not giving this extra force a way to avoid fighting the Fomorians in their lair. Tell them about the threat further from home and they might choose to engage there and leave the nest intact, and as actual children they have no way of assaulting it by themselves. The Court fighting for their freehold at Muir Woods doesn't actually solve the problem.

So it sounds like they're going with plan B, insurance fraud.

[Vyke]

"The situation" they're asking for help with though is that there's a nest of Fomorians in their actual home. They're not just trying to protect Muir Woods, they're trying to eradicate the source.

They are actually better served by not giving this extra force a way to avoid fighting the Fomorians in their lair. Tell them about the threat further from home and they might choose to engage there and leave the nest intact, and as actual children they have no way of assaulting it by themselves. The Court fighting for their freehold at Muir Woods doesn't actually solve the problem.

So it sounds like they're going with plan B, insurance fraud.

I mean... sure. But that isn't the Seelie's fight.

[GloatingSwine]

I mean... sure. But that isn't the Seelie's fight.

Which implies, of course, that there were no answers to the question that would have been useful to the players, and they are in fact in a no-win situation because for some reason they're playing children who have few to no direct ways to act on the world, no resources because they're tenement rats, and no allies to call on.

[Vyke]

Which implies, of course, that there were no answers to the question that would have been useful to the players, and they are in fact in a no-win situation because for some reason they're playing children who have few to no direct ways to act on the world, no resources because they're tenement rats, and no allies to call on.

No. You have inferred that. And you do so incorrectly.

I have specifically given a response that would have been useful to the players above. I'll quote it.


"Look we'd like your help in fighting some werewolves and fomori. We don't know the number but we have done some scouting and we do know they plan to attack a place called Muir Wood. Since we know where it is we can combine our forces and ambush them, hopefully minimising our own causalities. Or we know where they lair so we can attack them in their own home, a tenement block not far from here. We're happy to discuss what resources we can bring to the fight if you have anyone near by that can support it."

"Hmmmm. Muir wood. Yes, I think my superiors might be interested in such an alliance. As neighbours we would be happy to stand by you if you would stand by us in the future. Nothing that would make you uncomfortable, of course."


The fact you don't like it is irrelevant.

[Unoriginal]

"The situation" they're asking for help with though is that there's a nest of Fomorians in their actual home. They're not just trying to protect Muir Woods, they're trying to eradicate the source.

They are actually better served by not giving this extra force a way to avoid fighting the Fomorians in their lair. Tell them about the threat further from home and they might choose to engage there and leave the nest intact, and as actual children they have no way of assaulting it by themselves. The Court fighting for their freehold at Muir Woods doesn't actually solve the problem.

If that's the case, then why ask the Court in the first place?

The PCs are unwilling to reward the help in any way, and are outspoken about it.

So... they're literally asking a group they consider untrustworthy for help, making clear said group won't get anything beneficial in exchange of the help, and are expecting the group to shoulder all the risks and dangers.

Then they're disappointed the group doesn't help them?


Which implies, of course, that there were no answers to the question that would have been useful to the players, and they are in fact in a no-win situation because for some reason they're playing children who have few to no direct ways to act on the world, no resources because they're tenement rats, and no allies to call on.

Why is "those werewolves are planning on messing with your stuff" not an answer to get help?

The Fair Folk are known not only for defending their stuff, but also inflicting dire retribution on those who mess with their stuff.

[GloatingSwine]

If that's the case, then why ask the Court in the first place?

The PCs are unwilling to reward the help in any way, and are outspoken about it.

They're also unable to reward the help in any way. They're children. They have no direct way to act on this problem, so they can't even meaningfully offer service in exchange for service.


So... they're literally asking a group they consider untrustworthy for help, making clear said group won't get anything beneficial in exchange of the help, and are expecting the group to shoulder all the risks and dangers.

Then they're disappointed the group doesn't help them?

They're asking a group they, mistakenly, think will ride out to smite evil at the mere knowledge of its existence. But they don't seem to have many alternatives either. Because they're children. They aren't looking for allies, they're looking for champions who can act in their stead because their ability to do so is so limited.



Why is "those werewolves are planning on messing with your stuff" not an answer to get help?

The Fair Folk are known not only for defending their stuff, but also inflicting dire retribution on those who mess with their stuff.

They don't know the fomorians are going to mess with the fair folk's stuff. They don't know the stuff even exists.

[Vyke]

Why is "those werewolves are planning on messing with your stuff" not an answer to get help?

The Fair Folk are known not only for defending their stuff, but also inflicting dire retribution on those who mess with their stuff.

In the interest of fairness, because the players don't know they're messing with the Fair Folk's stuff. Of course if they just said what they know instead of keeping it a secret from potential allies, they would.

[Vyke]

They're also unable to reward the help in any way. They're children. They have no direct way to act on this problem, so they can't even meaningfully offer service in exchange for service.



They're asking a group they, mistakenly, think will ride out to smite evil at the mere knowledge of its existence. But they don't seem to have many alternatives either. Because they're children. They aren't looking for allies, they're looking for champions who can act in their stead because their ability to do so is so limited.

They could offer to do the Fair Folk a favour down the line. I guarantee they'd take that offer seriously.

[GloatingSwine]

They could offer to do the Fair Folk a favour down the line. I guarantee they'd take that offer seriously.

Which is where we're back to trust, but also literally every story about the Fae ever making it exceptionally clear that you should never get yourself into owing that sort of open-ended favour. Which makes the lack of trust 100% justified.

[Unoriginal]

They're asking a group they, mistakenly, think will ride out to smite evil at the mere knowledge of its existence. But they don't seem to have many alternatives either. Because they're children. They aren't looking for allies, they're looking for champions who can act in their stead because their ability to do so is so limited.

Then their idea to commit a domestic bombing is also doomed for failure, because they're random children and their opponents are a threat even adults who dedicated years of training to fight would have problem with.

But also the GM should have corrected the assumption about the "ride out to smite evil", since the PC who suggested asking the Seelie would have known they weren't that kind of beings.


They're also unable to reward the help in any way. They're children. They have no direct way to act on this problem, so they can't even meaningfully offer service in exchange for service.

They may be children, but the Lords and Ladies are known to not let that stop them.

Maybe Billy and Timmy would have to give up their ability to sing or their sight, but OP clearly indicated that some of the Seelie were willing to make a bargain, and they were shut down.

So it's not unable, it's unwilling.

And it's fair, having to do dubious, damning deals to destroy dastardly dangers is not something most people are happy to do, but let's not pretend like the PCs couldn't take such a deal.

[Vyke]

Which is where we're back to trust, but also literally every story about the Fae ever making it exceptionally clear that you should never get yourself into owing that sort of open-ended favour. Which makes the lack of trust 100% justified.

Possibly. But that's, what we call, a campaign hook. And it's only justified if it's used to make the players miserable.

[GloatingSwine]

Then their idea to commit a domestic bombing is also doomed for failure, because they're random children and their opponents are a threat even adults who dedicated years of training to fight would have problem with.


That's why they've found someone else they think is willing and able to do it.


And it's fair, having to do dubious, damning deals to destroy dastardly dangers is not something most people are happy to do, but let's not pretend like the PCs couldn't take such a deal.

Well it sounds like that's what they're going to do, but with someone whose price is exacted on the world around the characters.

But also it's not clear that the Seelie fae ever actually named a price. The players made it clear they were unable and unwilling to pay anything, but we haven't actually heard about a price being set either. (Not necessarily because there wasn't one, Talakeal's stories always leave out important information, but until we're told "the Fae requested they serve as jesters to the court for a year and a day in exchange for help" or something I'm going to assume they just never tried presenting one because the players had pre-declared they had nothing to give)

[Unoriginal]

Which is where we're back to trust, but also literally every story about the Fae ever making it exceptionally clear that you should never get yourself into owing that sort of open-ended favour. Which makes the lack of trust 100% justified.

The lack of trust in the Fae is justified, but they still went to the Fae to ask for help thinking they'd help no string attached.

There is a dichotomy in how they're treating the same group at the same time, and I think that part of their frustrations come from this.

Maybe they expected the Fair Folk to be the "unconditionally kind" kind and then reacted with "oh no, this is the 'will demand your firstborn for even a minor favor' kind, let's back down" the first time they got told that no, the Court won't fight on their behalf against evil just like that.

But in that case the problem is setting lore not being communicated or remembered correctly, as I said earlier. And the GM should have told them that Fairies aren't selfless crusaders against darkness as soon as the idea was mentioned.

Unless if none of the PCs had any way to know that... which doesn't seem to be the case.

[NichG]

Communication in general seems to be a problem here. The GM's perspective here is a mirror of the players! The players don't want to just randomly volunteer information, which confuses the GM. But the GM also doesn't seem to want the Seelie from coming out and saying what they would need, because that would make it feel less like an RPG to them and more like collaborative storytelling!

So everyone here is being stingy with information while simultaneously also being frustrated by the consequences of that.

[Talakeal]

Sounds like they have nothing to offer.

They're poor kids from the projects with no material or spiritual resources and no pertinent information, and you expect them to say something they have no reason to know is relevant. If they don't know the Changelings have any interests in the Muir Woods they have no reason to mention them. And they're in this situation because they have faulty (out of character, it sounds like) expectations of the nature of the Seelie court as romantic crusaders against evil in all its forms.

Except you don't expect this to be their induction into the Unseelie, despite the situation as you described being almost custom designed to produce that outcome! Seriously, this is a starting story for a group to be inducted into the Unseelie court after seeing the selfish hypocrisy of the Seelie not acting except for their own. (Honour is a lie, writ large in their lives)

Yep. It absolutely did end up with them in bed with the unseelie court.


The only way they "answer" the question is just by spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident.

Other people have already covered this, but I think you are missing the point of the thread.

They were repeatedly asked a direct question. "What are the fomorians planning?".

All they had to do was answer the question honestly.

This isn't some "read the GM's mind" or "produce an answer unbidden".


Although, IRL common sense would tell me that if I was reporting a conspiracy to the authorities, I should probably tell them what the criminals were planning on doing.

[icefractal]

I think they were imagining this scenario:

Fey: "What are the Fomori planning, exactly?"
PC: "They're going to attack Muir woods."
Fey: "The woods? That's way out of our territory. Sorry, but we don't have unlimited resources, we have to focus on problems within the city."

Or possibly (you'd have to ask them, and no guarantee of getting a straight answer) they mentally discarded "Muir woods" because it wasn't important to their characters.

Like, say I see some organized-crime looking guys hanging around my neighborhood, and then overhear one of them saying:
"... and we'll start a big shootout here, make sure all the police are rushing to this area, then while they're busy we hit the diamond center and ..."
The part about "the diamond center" is so incredibly unimportant to me compared to the "start a big shootout here" part. 99.999999% of my concern with the situation is about the part where me and my neighbors get shot, I could give less of a **** about what they're planning to steal by using this as a distraction.

[Talakeal]

Communication in general seems to be a problem here. The GM's perspective here is a mirror of the players! The players don't want to just randomly volunteer information, which confuses the GM. But the GM also doesn't seem to want the Seelie from coming out and saying what they would need, because that would make it feel less like an RPG to them and more like collaborative storytelling!

So everyone here is being stingy with information while simultaneously also being frustrated by the consequences of that.

You seem to be having trouble separating in character and out of character knowledge.

As a GM, I know quite a bit more than any other party at the table or in the game world. But it isn't my role to share that information; and it kind of breaks the nature of an RPG to share information with the players OOC.

In character; the Seelie know things the PCs don't, and the PCs know things the Seelie don't.

The Seelie are attempting to resolve this by asking and answering questions.
The PCs are clamming up and refusing to answer the questions that are asked of them or asking questions of their own in turn*.

This is not a mirror. This is one side being open and trying to resolve the lack of information, and the other side being closed off and trying to maintain the asymmetry of information.


Now, OOC I suppose it is a mirror; both sides are expected to keep in character and not use meta-game information to resolve the situation.


*: Although asking the right question might take a little cleverness on the player's part.


I think they were imagining this scenario:

Fey: "What are the Fomori planning, exactly?"
PC: "They're going to attack Muir woods."
Fey: "The woods? That's way out of our territory. Sorry, but we don't have unlimited resources, we have to focus on problems within the city."

Or possibly (you'd have to ask them, and no guarantee of getting a straight answer) they mentally discarded "Muir woods" because it wasn't important to their characters.

Like, say I see some organized-crime looking guys hanging around my neighborhood, and then overhear one of them saying:
"... and we'll start a big shootout here, make sure all the police are rushing to this area, then while they're busy we hit the diamond center and ..."
The part about "the diamond center" is so incredibly unimportant to me compared to the "start a big shootout here" part. 99.999999% of my concern with the situation is about the part where me and my neighbors get shot, I could give less of a **** about what they're planning to steal by using this as a distraction.

That's very possible.

But it still doesn't explain why they didn't give up the information after their initial attempt to get the Seelie to storm their building had already failed.

[NichG]

You seem to be having trouble separating in character and out of character knowledge.

As a GM, I know quite a bit more than any other party at the table or in the game world. But it isn't my role to share that information; and it kind of breaks the nature of an RPG to share information with the players OOC.

In character; the Seelie know things the PCs don't, and the PCs know things the Seelie don't.

The Seelie are attempting to resolve this by asking and answering questions.
The PCs are clamming up and refusing to answer the questions that are asked of them or asking questions of their own in turn*.

This is not a mirror. This is one side being open and trying to resolve the lack of information, and the other side being closed off and trying to maintain the asymmetry of information.


It's a mirror in that you don't want to communicate and they don't want to communicate, you both have excuses for why that's the right choice, but when the result of that is dysfunction neither of you are willing to actually change your behaviors to fix it.

You can't imagine an official of the Seelie saying 'Look guys, we need detailed information in order to decide if we're going to act or not. The less you tell us, the less convincing you are. Your only hope to get our cooperation is to be completely and totally upfront about everything you know.' rather than just asking questions, getting stonewalled, and going 'well I didn't get the answer so I guess I'll just walk away'.

Clearly both you and your players are dissatisfied with this state of affairs.

Like, if this is what everyone wanted - you depicted a particular NPC personality accurate to your vision, the players then depicted their characters' response to encountering someone with that personality accurately to their vision, and no one felt frustrated by it then great! But if that's the case, why post this thread? So clearly, the players didn't feel like 'hey that was a great scene where we got to say screw you to the arrogant seelie and launch our unseelie alleigance'. You didn't feel like what happened made sense either, or you wouldn't be here asking about it.

Even if you're just curious about the behavior, why are you coming here and asking strangers about it rather than asking the actual only people who know the true answer - your players!

So it feels to me, no one at your table is actually comfortable with honest, forthright communication. You don't know how to talk to each-other in a way that actually ensures the other person understands. So you end up with this kind of thing where you're confused by each-others choices.

[Easy e]

I find it helpful for the NPCs to be as blunt as possible.

Players: We need your help?

NPC: Why would I help you?

Players: Formorians are evil and up to no good!

NPC: That has ne bearing on me. Why do you think should care about Fomorians being evil? How does that impact me?

Players: Ahhhh.... they could disrupt what you are doing?

NPC: I don't care about theoretical situations. What are they doing, and I can tell you if it threatens me.

However, the players now have a clear choice. The NPC has been very clear on what they need to make a decision, will you give them that information or not.

Perhaps a reverse question to consider is, why would players feel the need to hide information in the game?

[Talakeal]

You can't imagine an official of the Seelie saying 'Look guys, we need detailed information in order to decide if we're going to act or not. The less you tell us, the less convincing you are. Your only hope to get our cooperation is to be completely and totally upfront about everything you know.' rather than just asking questions, getting stonewalled, and going 'well I didn't get the answer so I guess I'll just walk away'.


I find it helpful for the NPCs to be as blunt as possible.

Players: We need your help?

NPC: Why would I help you?

Players: Formorians are evil and up to no good!

NPC: That has ne bearing on me. Why do you think should care about Fomorians being evil? How does that impact me?

Players: Ahhhh.... they could disrupt what you are doing?

NPC: I don't care about theoretical situations. What are they doing, and I can tell you if it threatens me.

Guys.... this is exactly what happened!


Even if you're just curious about the behavior, why are you coming here and asking strangers about it rather than asking the actual only people who know the true answer - your players!

I did ask them. They didn't seem to really know very well themselves, but at that point they were already frustrated and it was getting late so I let it go.

But this is far from the first time this has happened, and so I am really more curious about the general principle than the specific situation.

[Cygnia]

Oh, to be the proverbial fly on the wall at one of these games...

What sort of payment were you expecting these child PCs even being able to offer the Sidhe in return for their help?

I get being frustrated with the closed lips those. This really is calling for an out-of-game session where everyone (yourself included) can hopefully/constructively air out those frustrations.

[icefractal]

Guys.... this is exactly what happened!I know an exact transcript isn't possible, but could you give your best recollection of the actual dialog which occured?

Because I've heard, over the course of this thread:
* The fey asked exactly what help the PCs wanted.
* The fey asked what the fomori were up to.
* The fey specifically said that they'd be more likely to help if the PCs told them all relevant info, bluntly and directly.

Those are three different things!! Things that can overlap, but still, different things! If after 50+ posts, we don't even know what the fey did or didn't say, then I'm not surprised your players didn't grok it either. I know you don't like posting "irrelevant" details, but I think they're only irrelevant to you because you have the full picture in your head.

[NichG]

Guys.... this is exactly what happened!

What was the player response to the last bit? Was it 'No, we refuse to tell you'? Or just like 'We already told you everything' or 'We told you what you need to know'? Or was it just reiterating something they had already said?

I have a feeling that no, it wasn't exactly like this in ways that matter, but that it differed in ways you're either filtering out, not sensitive to, or rejecting as relevant on principle.

Did anyone ever explicitly say "If you tell us the details, we'll help you."? Did anyone explicitly say e.g. "We need to know where they're going to attack."?

[Kish]

The general principle is that they think you're constantly trying to screw them over, Talakeal, whether accurately or inaccurately. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they caught they you wanted them to give the changelings a full description of the situation, and that caused them to conclude that was the one thing they must not do at any cost. Particularly if, as you're now saying, the NPCs didn't just ask "what are they planning?" but said, "We're not going to help unless we have a reason to, now tell us exactly what they're doing."

[Unoriginal]

Honestly, when something happens in a PC-NPC interaction and the GM doesn't know what it means, the scene should be put on pause until it's clarified.

Like, if my PCs were talking to a guide who can help them, but say something they were warned would immediately make this NPC (like calling him by the insulting nickname his rival coined), I would drop character and just ask if the PC is trying to make him mad or if the player just forgot.

[BRC]

I see two Possible explanations here.

Your Players are Underthinking it
Viewing the game world as a matter of straightforward black and white conflict, they see the Formorians as Evil. The fact that they intend to attack the Changelings means the Changelings are good, and should therefore be willing to help them against the Formorians. Pointing out that the Formorians are an imminent and direct threat to the Changelings doesn't occur to them because the changelings shouldn't need to be directly threatened to try to help.

Or

Your Players are overthinking it
Knowing that by involving the Changelings they're entering a sort of Fae storyline, your players are being very paranoid about not accidentally making an agreement or slip of the tongue that lands them within some sort of fae-contract. Not unreasonable, but they're overcorrecting by refusing to say anything specific or definite at all. Rather than saying "The Formorians are planning to attack you", they want to make vague statements about how the Formor are bad news and need to be stopped, because they're worried that any specific statement they make might get fae-ruled into some sort of binding contract.
Or, alternatively, the entire party has decided that giving up the information is crossing some sort of line, and none of them want to be the one who makes that decision for the rest of the party. They're all waiting for somebody else to come forward and give up the actual information.

[gbaji]

Yeah. Put me down for "what *exactly* was said?" as well.


The players are children who found out that their tenement building is home to a pack of black spiral dancer werewolves who are turning its residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the garou in Muir Woods.

Did the PCs actuallly know that the werewolves were turning residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the Woods? Or did they only know that residents in their tenement were being attacked and turned? It's really easy sometimes for GMs to get so caught up in the details of the scenario they are running, that they fail to realize that they didn't actuallly tell the players some key bit of information (or didn't make it significant enough for them to remember when it matters later).

The PCs may very well have thought that "bad guys doing bad things to folks in our building" was the main point of what was going on, and not at all thinking in terms of "then they're going to use the folks they transformed to do bad things to some other people in some other location", nor think that was important.


One of the children is a changeling, and they decided to ask the local Seelie court for help.
The players do not know that the Seelie court have a freehold in Muir Woods.
The players ask the Seelie to come and kill the werewolves in their building.

Right. Again, the problem is that since the players don't know that the Seelie have any interest in the Woods, they have no reason to think that mentioning the Woods is relevant.

I think the best advice I can give you for when you find yourself in this situation is to test if your players actually know the informatoin you think they should know. Literally ask them in OOC: "Um... You guys do remember what you learned about what the wolves are planning, right?". Then, if they say "no", remind them. If they say "yes", ask them to confirm what they know and make sure it matches with what you think they know.


The Seelie ask, very specifically, what the fomori are planning.
If the players had mentioned an attack on Muir Woods, they would have been alerted to the threat to their freehold.
The players just gave very broad generalities, saying that they were evil and they were in the city and that should be enough.

Which, again, points to them either not knowing about the planned attack on the woods, or not thinking it was relevant. You need to stop as a GM at this point and make sure your players know what's going on. Most of the time, I've found that this is about a miscommunication earlier in the game, which leads the players to make what appears to be a mistake later on.


The changelings said that it wasn't their fight and they had no reason to get involved.

What exact language did you use though? You could have said something like "We have no interest in a single tenement building. If you show us that the threat is broader than that, we might be intrested in helping". You know... hint really strongly that the players should be passing on some additional information that the threat is to more than just the one building. And yeah, if the players still don't get the hint there, then go back to asking the players if they know/remember that this whole thing is about attacking the Woods.

It's entirely possible you mentioned this at some point, and they just plain forgot. Or.... you forgot to mention it. I've seen even really good GMs just forget to tell the players some key bit of information. And it usually results in huge amounts of confusion and frustration, with the GM wondering why the players aren't doing "some really obvious thing" and the players getting frustrated that "everything we've tried doesn't work". Eventually, you have to stop and ask OOC if the players remember that key bit of information. Don't just assume so and then wonder why they aren't acting on it. Verify it.

And maybe even ask them directly "Do you tell the Seelie about the planned attack on the woods?". You might just be shocked when/if the players respond with "what attack on the woods?"




I am kind of confused about whether you are advocating:
A: The GM playing it straight and letting the story develop naturally to avoid railroading.
B: The GM breaking character, telling the players what they need to do, and ret-conning the situation for the desired result.

There is a middle ground where you give hints/suggestions, or at least verify that they have all of the information they need to make the right decision.

If your adventure depends on the players remembering to use the magic key they got to open the magic door, and then when they run into the door, they're trying to pick the lock, or bash in the door, or find some magic way around the magic door, your response should not be to be baffled why they aren't using the magic key. Your response should be to remind them about the key.

Remind them about the magic key. Remind them about the planned attack on the woods. Remind them that this may be imiportant to the Seelie. It's not railroading to merely remind the players of information they should already have. Now if they consciously and intentionally decide not to tell the Seelie about the attack on the woods for some reason, then that's entirely on them. But you cannot just assume that if they don't mention it, that they know about it, and know it's relevant, but are intentionally witholding it.

What you know, and what your players know are two different things. Don't assume what your players know. Ask.


In general, especially when it comes to some kind of transaction such as my example and possibly your changeling example, if I as a player ask for help / a service / something like that , where I'm prepared to pay for the service or whatever, then if whoever I'm asking for help asks me "what for?" the gut reaction is "none of your busyness". And the more you ask me to tell you my intentions the more I feel uncomfortable about telling you more details.

That seems like an odd response. You're asking to borrow some powerful magic item (or something similar). I think it's reasonable for the person being asked to want to know what you are going to do with it.

If someone walked up to you and says "Can I borrow your gun for a few hours? I'll get it right back to you". What would be the very next thing out of our mouth?

Or... "Can I borrow your car?'

Or.... "Can I borrow your credit card?"

Or.... <insert anything someone might borrow from you for which you may be held accountable for its use>


It's not really unreasonable for NPCs to want to know this kind of stuff, and frankly absurd to think they'd lend powerful reliics to someone without asking such questions. It's definitely not none of their business. It's their item. It's absolutely 100% their business to know what you intend to do with it.

[Telok]

Players not sharing info with NPCs, or generally failing to communicate with them, is fairly common in my experience. It crosses groups, systems, campaigns, etc.

I've seen it from PCs granted an audience with a king saying "he can't help us lets leave" to PCs framed for murder saying "look at the video" and leaving the star system at run-away-from-the-police speeds. Not telling allied troops under their command what they're expecting to fight causing over half the troops to die. Hiring information brokers to find very specific answers to stuff but not telling them enough to get the actual questions answered. Trying to hire mercenaries without telling them what's going on or who they'll be fighting. Stuff like that.

Some people are just super cagey with information no matter what or just can't/won't/don't interact with NPCs like they were people. I wonder... its like some people treat talking to NPCs like some old computer game NPCs. Type in the right word and get a plot related info dump. Type in the wrong word and it causes the NPC to attack or close the store or something. Like there's no concept of NPCs existing separate from the PCs and the game plot and just being there for info dumping, buying stuff from, or fighting with.

[icefractal]

to PCs framed for murder saying "look at the video" and leaving the star system at run-away-from-the-police speeds.
...
Hiring information brokers to find very specific answers to stuff but not telling them enough to get the actual questions answered. TBF, I might do these two myself, depending on circumstances.

For the first, sometimes frame-ups succeed and sometimes innocent people wind up in prison even without intentional framing. I have no IC reason to assume justice will assuredly prevail this time, and I'm not willing to risk life in prison when I have the option to flee.

On the second, info-brokers sell info both ways. Anything I tell them in the process of finding info is something they could turn around and sell to my enemies. Obviously being *too* cagey can backfire, but it's just a failure of execution rather than of basic strategy.

[GloatingSwine]

Not telling allied troops under their command what they're expecting to fight causing over half the troops to die..

A low casualty engagement for the Imperial Guard, you mean.

[gbaji]

Some people are just super cagey with information no matter what or just can't/won't/don't interact with NPCs like they were people. I wonder... its like some people treat talking to NPCs like some old computer game NPCs. Type in the right word and get a plot related info dump. Type in the wrong word and it causes the NPC to attack or close the store or something. Like there's no concept of NPCs existing separate from the PCs and the game plot and just being there for info dumping, buying stuff from, or fighting with.

This is a bit of supposition on my part, but it may also have to do with the table habits in terms of in-character and out-of-character talk. I know that some GMs/players really want and expect that things said at the table (related to the game anyway) must be kept in context of what characters are actually saying or doing, and "table talk" is discouraged. I can't say to what degree this may affect players being "cagey", but it may explain how players being cagey may cause loss of information being transferred.

At my table we encourage table talk among the players. One PC, off on their own, making a decision about what to do? The entire table of players is going to be giving free/unsolicited advice. As long as they aren't passing character only knowledge, I have no issues with this at all. The result, though, is that scenarios like in the OP are just plain alien to me. My players would never have their characters do something like go to the Seelie and ask for help without first having spent 20-30 minutes at the table having a long discussion amongs themselves about what they're going to do there, who's going to talk, what they're going to say, what information to share, what to keep secret, etc.

Point being that at no point will I ever be confused as to why the PCs are or are not saying certain things to the NPCs in this sort of situation. If they've decided to not tell the Seelie about the attack in the woods, it will have been discussed, and a very open and verbal decision to "not tell the Seelie about the attack in the woods" would have been made. There woul be zero confusion on my part (or their's) as to what was going on, and why. Also, if they failed to discuss or mention the attack in the woods in their pre-planning for the meeting with the Seelie, I would know this. And guess what? I would probably ask them "hey guys. What are you planning to tell them about the planned attack in the woods?". Again. There is no secret here. Everything is discussed ahead of time. And I, as the GM, can be part of that discussion as well, if for no other reason than to ensure that they haven't actually forgotten key details about the adventure.


So yeah. The idea that they go there, apparently without any discussion ahead of time, and then.... what? We roleplay things out and hope the players remember what they were doing, and why, and every detail of the adventure? I'm not adverse to folks who want to play this out in this manner. Lots of tables do this, and are successful and have a great time. But if you are finding the players "forgetting the plan" frequently? Maybe have them talk this all out ahead of time, so that the players and the GM are all on the same page when the actual RP portion comes along.


Unless the players are being cagey or not discussing this kind of stuff ahead of time because they don't trust the GM. Which is a whole different problem.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

gbaji, that's how my table operates as well. And while I don't prompt them quite as directly as you did in your example, it's part of my responsibility as the GM to clear up any ambiguities -- I, as the GM, need to be 100% clear on what the player wants his character to do, and the player can only give me that information if they're clear on the world state and game situation. The character can be ambiguous and evasive, and the NPC can be ambiguous and evasive back, but only within a larger framework where both the player and I are on the same page.

[gbaji]

gbaji, that's how my table operates as well. And while I don't prompt them quite as directly as you did in your example, it's part of my responsibility as the GM to clear up any ambiguities -- I, as the GM, need to be 100% clear on what the player wants his character to do, and the player can only give me that information if they're clear on the world state and game situation. The character can be ambiguous and evasive, and the NPC can be ambiguous and evasive back, but only within a larger framework where both the player and I are on the same page.

Yup. I also find it's incredibly useful since sometimes the players just get the wrong idea about something. Having this kind of open discussion ahead of time allows the GM to correct those miconceptions. So if the players are talking about "who is going to put the poison in the Duke's drink while at the party" and I know that it's the Baron, and not the Duke, who is the bad guy that the PCs are supposed to be oppossed to, I'm not just going to sit there quietly wondering why they're targetting some random guy instead of the one they're supposed to be going after. I'm going to ask them "Um... Are you sure you mean the Duke? It's the Baron who you learned was working for the demon lord. As far as you know, the Duke knows nothing of this, and hasn't done anything evil".

If it's obvious the players have mixed something up, or forgotten some detail, I'm going to clear things up for them. Obviously, this does not apply if they have all of the information but have simply decided on the wrong course of action all on their own. So if they decide to poison the Duke anyway, despite having no evidence he's a bad guy, and it's clear that they know this fact, then... that's their choice. But yeah. Just on the off chance that they are confused about something, I will ask them. Just in case (sometimes, players do strange and unexpected things, knowing full well that it's strange and unexpected).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Yup. I also find it's incredibly useful since sometimes the players just get the wrong idea about something. Having this kind of open discussion ahead of time allows the GM to correct those miconceptions. So if the players are talking about "who is going to put the poison in the Duke's drink while at the party" and I know that it's the Baron, and not the Duke, who is the bad guy that the PCs are supposed to be oppossed to, I'm not just going to sit there quietly wondering why they're targetting some random guy instead of the one they're supposed to be going after. I'm going to ask them "Um... Are you sure you mean the Duke? It's the Baron who you learned was working for the demon lord. As far as you know, the Duke knows nothing of this, and hasn't done anything evil".

If it's obvious the players have mixed something up, or forgotten some detail, I'm going to clear things up for them. Obviously, this does not apply if they have all of the information but have simply decided on the wrong course of action all on their own. So if they decide to poison the Duke anyway, despite having no evidence he's a bad guy, and it's clear that they know this fact, then... that's their choice. But yeah. Just on the off chance that they are confused about something, I will ask them. Just in case (sometimes, players do strange and unexpected things, knowing full well that it's strange and unexpected).

Yeah, agreed. I think in that situation... Let's say the Duke and the Baron are at the same party, and the players know that the Baron is Doctor Murder in disguise and the Duke is just a duke. If they're talking about poisoning the Duke, I'd probably edge right up to it without saying 'you have the wrong person'. "The Baron is remarkably calm. He's flirting with the woman on his left and his wife is glowering from down the table. It's hard to believe he's Doctor Murder under his filigreed circlet, despite the puppy you saw him kick before he got in his carriage." And then if the players go "Ok yeah how do we poison the Duke" well crap I guess I'm going with them poisoning the Duke...? I do want to preserve chances for them to make mistakes, and I don't want to say outright "I think you are doing the wrong thing." I guess I might ask why they're planning to poison the Duke and what their plan is. If it is a genuine OOC mistake, I want to clear it up, but if it's a case of the entire party just wildly missing the point I can't and shouldn't play their characters for them. It's a thin hair to split, I guess!

[NichG]

An extreme example of why communication is so important...

I had a setting with two neighboring countries - Sarsena and Sepena. Sepena had gone to war with one of the PC's adopted country across the ocean following a bunch of media manipulation stuff, and the PC wanted to figure out why the war was happening. This was a very dark edgy assassin/mind-controlley character by the way, who did things like kill targets by manipulating their dreams, just to establish the sort of approach to 'find out' that the PC tends to take. That player also sometimes would just do things or fixate on things that didn't make sense to me but were important to them, so I was a bit used to just seeing where they were going with stuff rather than triple-checking their reasoning.

So at some point, the player is like 'I'm going to go to the royal palace in Sarsena'. Okay, fine. 'I'm going to try to chart a path through the mirrors here to map out the place'. Okay, fine, not sure why you're interested in Sarsena suddenly but maybe you're plotting something involving setting Sarsena up to think Sepena attacked them? Well, whatever. 'I want to try to catch the queen alone somewhere that I can use mirrors to teleport in', um okay getting creepy but maybe its that plan? 'Okay, I ambush her, put a knife to her throat and ask: Why did you invade my country?!'

The player had mistaken Sarsena for Sepena due to the similarity between the names. Two hours of play later and...

If it doesn't make sense, ask.

[Telok]

This is a bit of supposition on my part, but

Yes that's really massive supposition on your part. People in my part of the woods actually talk to each other like normal folk. At times even I, when I'm GMing, will make suggestions because its something I think the characters would know and consider.

As I said, and I repeat it here again; in my experience this is fairly common and transcends GMs, systems, and campaigns. Its not the real live people at the table hiding information from each other. Its them being weird about talking to NPCs like they're plot devices or something.

[ciopo]

That seems like an odd response. You're asking to borrow some powerful magic item (or something similar). I think it's reasonable for the person being asked to want to know what you are going to do with it.

If someone walked up to you and says "Can I borrow your gun for a few hours? I'll get it right back to you". What would be the very next thing out of our mouth?

Or... "Can I borrow your car?'

Or.... "Can I borrow your credit card?"

Or.... <insert anything someone might borrow from you for which you may be held accountable for its use>


It's not really unreasonable for NPCs to want to know this kind of stuff, and frankly absurd to think they'd lend powerful reliics to someone without asking such questions. It's definitely not none of their business. It's their item. It's absolutely 100% their business to know what you intend to do with it.
It was the insistence in that resurrection case,
like, within the context "we'd like to be rented this magical artifact that helps resurrect people" , some basic who why questions are fine, drilling into more specific details raised our hackles about it
we presented ourself truthfully and with the legitimacy backign us (we've been bestowed land and noble titles for meritous deeds, in a polity not where the church is, but know to be LN tending to LG)
we stated truthfully that the monks already made attempts with normal resurrection, but failed
we stated truthfully that the recipient of the resurrection is the LG guardian beast of their temple
(actually under a zone of truth equivalent)

like, we told him who we are aiming to resurrect in the "category of being", does it really matter who the specific individual is? at that point I asked OOC questions about what we know about the relationship between the normal pantheon (and Abadar / good / lawful deities in specific) and the organizations associated with the pillars of virtue.
It raised our "I don't know how, but revealing stuff here is going to bite us in the ass"

Probably doesn't help that that campaign is getting more and more intrigue/political bent, so that probably shaped the perception we had of the encounter

[GloatingSwine]

I have no issues with this at all. The result, though, is that scenarios like in the OP are just plain alien to me. My players would never have their characters do something like go to the Seelie and ask for help without first having spent 20-30 minutes at the table having a long discussion amongs themselves about what they're going to do there, who's going to talk, what they're going to say, what information to share, what to keep secret, etc.


Unless the players are being cagey or not discussing this kind of stuff ahead of time because they don't trust the GM. Which is a whole different problem.

Yeah, I mean that's the thing isn't it. We're back to trust. If the players don't trust the DM they won't engage in a Guy Richie Planning Montage with the DM present because they'll assume anything they do say in it will be used to make their plans fail.

[Batcathat]

Yeah, I mean that's the thing isn't it. We're back to trust. If the players don't trust the DM they won't engage in a Guy Richie Planning Montage with the DM present because they'll assume anything they do say in it will be used to make their plans fail.

On one hand, that's an understandable reaction. On the other hand... well, why would someone play at all if they don't trust the GM not to actively try to screw them like that?

[GloatingSwine]

On one hand, that's an understandable reaction. On the other hand... well, why would someone play at all if they don't trust the GM not to actively try to screw them like that?

Probably because they've been trained to think like that by DMs who did screw them like that, even if they weren't trying to. It's already a natural temptation for the DM to plan for what the party can do when they're creating obstacles, leading to suspiciously specific countermeasures, and when they know what the players plan to do it takes discipline to stop that creeping in.

[Sneak Dog]

I see two Possible explanations here.

Your Players are Underthinking it
Viewing the game world as a matter of straightforward black and white conflict, they see the Formorians as Evil. The fact that they intend to attack the Changelings means the Changelings are good, and should therefore be willing to help them against the Formorians. Pointing out that the Formorians are an imminent and direct threat to the Changelings doesn't occur to them because the changelings shouldn't need to be directly threatened to try to help.

To be fair, the characters are kids. The players might be succesfully roleplaying kids. This kind of thinking does seem on point in that regard.

[Kardwill]

To be fair, the characters are kids. The players might be succesfully roleplaying kids. This kind of thinking does seem on point in that regard.

Well, the "then we'll hire people to torch the place and everybody inside, our parents included" plan B does not strike me as "successfully roleplaying kids" :smalltongue:


As for the part where players are dodgy and refuse to give informations to NPCs (or, more generally, to take some risks by trusting an NPC or comitting to a dangerous line of action), I think it's a trained response to the unspoken "you're not allowed to be stupid" rule.

Quite often, I hear GMs saying stuff like "I won't kill a PC unless the player does a big mistake" or "Of course, if they do something stupid, they will suffer the consequences". And it's true that playing out the consequences of the player's decision is the base building block of RPGs. But it also means that as players, we learn that "being stupid/unwary/reckless" is something bad that will be "punished" by the GM. So we get wary. We want to play "right", so we overthink, we don't commit to dangerous plans, we distrust every NPC. We play in a cautious, boring way, because we don't want to wreck the game. Even when we get the fancy of trying something risky or outright stupid just because it's fun, we get blocked by the fact that the consequence of our actions may ruin the adventure for the other players.
And the less we know about the possible consequences of our actions, the more we play in a conservative, control-obsessed, cautious way.

I think GMs can encourage players to be more trusting and daring by being upfront with possible consequences ("If you do X, Y will probably happen. You still want to do it?"), and by not treating suboptimal and risky decisions as mistakes or bad play, but as narrative opportunities, so that a player doesn't fear a judgemental slap on the wrist because he had a conversation with the Big Bad. But it may not fit all playstyles and campaign moods.

[KorvinStarmast]

As I said, and I repeat it here again; in my experience this is fairly common and transcends GMs, systems, and campaigns. Its not the real live people at the table hiding information from each other. Its them being weird about talking to NPCs like they're plot devices or something. I have three players who still do that.


Perhaps a reverse question to consider is, why would players feel the need to hide information in the game? Back to the point made by Kish: trust issues.

[Quertus]

So, there's the specific scenario you gave, and the general question about the behavior. This, to me, is like having a patient in the ER, and asking, "how can humans die?"; that is, it is valuable to understand such things, both in an academic sense, and to inform you wrt this specific patient; however, what should really matter to you is what's wrong with this specific patient, not the totality of potential human failings.

Still, much like "8 kinds of fun", understanding the basics can help provide both a shared language, and allow someone who understands and cares about testing (so, historically, sadly, not the OP) the ability to devise tests which can serve to differentiate the different reasons for, in this case, evading direct questions. So I guess I'll start there.

That said, me starting there will mostly just involve me randomly babbling. :smallamused:

Why would PCs not give specific information when asked, repeatedly?

The walls have ears: I wanted to start here, because this is probably the biggest reason I might avoid answering direct questions: the potential for information to get back to others. There are so many ways this could happen, because of actual spies / microphones / whatever, because it triggers FR-style "does X know about Y" Divinations, because people gab and "6 degrees of separation", or just because some listener might spill the beans by investigating the information. Related / compounding problems include if Secrecy is key, Reprisals are likely / expected, and Reprisals are costly - all of which apply in your example. Also related is one the PCs were in no position to evaluate: Listener's behavior is likely to change if given information, meaning that the cat's out of the bag simply by telling them, if anyone is watching them. Example: While I was running a superhero game for actual kids (the players, not the characters), their superheroes held a public "recruitment drive". They were going to hold it at their base, then decided that they wanted a hidden base, and therefore would hold it in a public setting. But how to explain to accepted members where their hidden base was? They decided they wouldn't tell them, since that could be overheard; instead, they'd pull them aside, down a hallway, into a room, and show them, in writing / on a map, to provide the least chance of information accidentally leaking.

The asker was acting weird: I wanted to list this one second, because, the way the OP was worded, this triggered my warning bells. "All the fey keep asking this same, irrelevant question - something's wrong here.". Whenever the person asking the questions starts asking suss, that's a good time to excuse yourself and find an adult.

That's the way modules are written: There are so many modules where the quest-givers are stingy with information, sometimes even after the quest is accepted, but often before the PCs accept the quest. As the PCs were the quest-givers in this scenario, it can make sense that they'd be unwilling to answer questions to those "on the fence", especially if they are "genre-savvy". Example: I'm actually running a module right now where the quest-giver is scripted to answer, 'I can't answer that question until you agree to participate" to simple questions like when, where, and what will we be doing.

Information has value: This is a good general reason not to give out information to people who haven't declared themselves as your allies. Someone wants more information than I've offered, while promising me nothing? No thanks, I'll look elsewhere, no freebies for you. This is especially problematic when dealing with the Fey (see below). So, in your specific example, the Fey were seemingly clearly telegraphing that they all wanted to get in bed with the Players' children, and the PCs decided they didn't want any of that (especially not with Fey who Violated their expectations of You're the Good Guys, here's a clearly Good quest against the Bad Guys, why aren't you doing anything / why isn't that enough?. (Obviously, with my verbosity, I'll never write for TV Tropes :smallamused:)

This GM has given us "gotchas" before / Other GMs have given us "gotchas": I suppose a better way of putting this is, "The Players are trying to be careful", generally because they have past experience that tells them that being careless (with information, or just in general) is Bad, and will have Consequences.

I'm running a character who doesn't like talking much / I don't feel like talking much: Sometimes, it is literally just the talking that's the problem. Yes, I put this in 1st person, because I honestly have never done the work to know if this affects anyone but me. I can cast Wall of Text, but actually talking to people is exhausting. I have to imagine that there exists other people who will run characters who are more... taciturn, so it's technically possible that this could come up purely as an RP thing. Speaking of which,

The character is being Roleplayed as a suboptimal being rather than as the Determinator: Sometimes, players will pick the "wrong" answer, just to prove that their character is fallible.

The player is Expressing something about the character: OK, this isn't actually directly "Expression", so much as subtle min-maxing in this specific example I'll make: the Player could be showing that, even if they were captured and mind-controlled into believing an illusion, they still won't accidentally give the game away that easily. Which, as they're dealing with the Fey, this could all just be a dream anyway...

The asker is fey / There are fey within earshot / There are (known to be) fey in the world: Fey are not only known to be tricky / wily and love making deals (which often do not match the other side's expectations; see also "Fairy Gold"), but often epitomize there is power in words, and also in some interpretations have rules/mechanics/whatever related to "debt". Not to mention that they have Rules of Hospitality (and Etiquette) that don't always jive with that of mortal races. So I very much tend to be "on alert" when in campaign settings that even have fey, never mind whether they're even involved in The Plot, and a few of my characters have learned similar lessons. Also, the fact that Fey are known to run off with children seems quite relevant in your particular case. In particular, when the Fey Violated their expectations of You're the Good Guys, here's a clearly Good quest against the Bad Guys, why aren't you doing anything / why isn't that enough?, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that, maybe, the Fey would prefer for all the PCs' parents to be dead, to make the children more likely to accept the Fey's invitations to come live with them. Did I mention I crank paranoia whenever someone mentions Fey in a game or story?

Your players want a different type of game: I put this last among my sample reasons, because it's a general catch-all that covers several of the things I've said, and a potentially infinite number more. Maybe your players want an Epic game of clearly-defined Good and Evil, where everyone wears their hat color on their sleeves, Good can be counted on to fight Evil with no thought of reward, and no need for NPCs to "monologue" (ie, talk beyond showing their White Hat, pointing at a Black Hat, and saying, "murderhobo that" (plus any relevant details of the opponents' stat blocks, of course)). Maybe your players want an Easy game of "whatever we say just works". Maybe your players want a Guided game, where the GM asks questions about any proposed plans, and tells them anything that their characters should know when there seems to be a disconnect, until the players' choices make "single author fiction" level of sense. Maybe your players want an Understandable / Approachable game, where, even after a long day at work, even when they turn their brains off, even when they just want popcorn gaming / a "beer and pretzels" game, they still understand what's going on in your game.

Would my PC in your game(s) avoid answering a direct question? Sometimes, definitely. Would I avoid answering a direct question? Less often, but yes, if I didn't understand the question, thought it was the wrong question, or thought that answering the question would give more misinformation without providing background details, to name a few reasons.

Why did your players do it, in this particular example? Unknown. But your OP gave no reason for them to give an answer, and lots of reasons for them to not give an answer, so this particular instance isn't terribly shocking IMO. Or, at least, it wouldn't be, if it happened outside of Bizarro World, at tables I've known, especially but by no means exclusively if I were involved (as player or GM) in that scenario.

[Vyke]

I do think, and I might be wrong... it has happened before*, that people seem to feel that the players were entitled to the support from the Seelie. That, because they were introduced, the GM should guide them through the exact steps required to get the aid. I'm not convinced that's the case. For whatever reasons, be they good bad or completely bemusing, the steps we know** are that the players selected a faction to recruit to their cause, were asked to share information, then refused to share their information, then refused a payment, then left and were surprised and frustrated that it didn't yield the required support.

This is exactly the obvious result of that sequence of events.

Now you can, if you like, say it was impossible to gain that alliance and I would disagree. You might say that the key step to gain that alliance was too obscure for the players to access and I... might... agree... but truthfully when you you go to ask someone for help you need to know they have the advantage and that you may have to blink first. If you don't. they have less to lose and can end the conversation. Every interaction between two or more people is a balance of how much this is worth to them even when you're not discussing committing your forces to potentially lethal action.

The Fey were open to 2 way dialogue and the players weren't. Their decision may make sense, it may be tactically correct, but the consequence of that decision is no Fey support. Not sure why it would be met with frustration. They weren't promised anything and did nothing to gain anything. They haven't lost anything (except maybe time)... this was just a dead end caused by a cost they weren't willing to meet.

*Like, twice. Or something close. I'm usually right.

**And I wasn't there so I don't know, know. I'm assuming

[Vahnavoi]

Some people are just super cagey with information no matter what or just can't/won't/don't interact with NPCs like they were people. I wonder... its like some people treat talking to NPCs like some old computer game NPCs. Type in the right word and get a plot related info dump. Type in the wrong word and it causes the NPC to attack or close the store or something. Like there's no concept of NPCs existing separate from the PCs and the game plot and just being there for info dumping, buying stuff from, or fighting with.

I don't think that's it. First, the biggest correlate with this kind of behaviour is being a kid, and kids these days are too young to have played games with a word parser. :smalltongue: Second, those old games actually required reading skills and being able to give specific info: if Talakeal's scenario had happened in such a game, savvy players would've made note of the phrase "Muir Woods" and tried throwing it around. Why? Because unusual phrases like that are less likely to (mis)interpreted by a parser unless it has special relevance and event trigger tied to it. This ties to GloatingSwine's criticism about Talakeal asking a password from his players, without telling them there even was a password. That may have been part of the problem, but I can also imagine players who are good enough at playing games of this sort to take notes of possible passwords all on their own.

Anyways, backs to kids... people below a certain level of development have trouble comprehending real people as independently existing things that aren't there just for their benefit. Even a completely normal child has to specifically learn and might be surprised of the fact that their teacher does not live in the school and actually does things other than teaching on their spare time, to give an example. It is possible that the format of a roleplaying game may cause adults to regress to this level - after all, games and play are fundamentally childlike activities. (I say that as an observation, not a condemnation, if someone needs that bit clarified.)

---


To be fair, the characters are kids. The players might be succesfully roleplaying kids. This kind of thinking does seem on point in that regard.

Yes... the players are succesfully playing kids by being childish, up to and including being frustrated when childish actions don't yield results in line with childish expectations. Though to be fair, their game master may be guilty of the same to some degree or another.


Well, the "then we'll hire people to torch the place and everybody inside, our parents included" plan B does not strike me as "successfully roleplaying kids" :smalltongue:


Haha. I can tell you, kids are among the most likely groups of people to threaten horrible atrocities to your face, with the only thing holding them back often being lack of vocabulary. The difference between real world and a game is that real kids rarely have the capacity to actually follow through. In the real world, a kid threatening to kill you and your dog is, typically, mildly distressing and not at all threatening. In a game, kids will do just what they promised and dance on your grave too. Kids are mean.

[kyoryu]

Did the PCs actuallly know...

Hey, Talakeal, read this response about ten times.

One trend I've noticed in your horror stories is (from my perspective) that you know what would be an effective path for the players to take, but the players don't have the necessary information.

For a path you think the players should take, ask yourself what information is required to know that's the path, and ask yourself if the players have that info, and if the info is unambiguous enough that it can't be read as something else.

Additionally, don't hesitate to give them the requirements to do things. Like, it's 100% reasonable to tell them. "It's clear that they're not going to get involved unless you can show them that it's relevant to them, directly." That gets them in the right area. But they also need to be able to discover why it's relevant.

You frame this as "the PCs being cagey" but I don't think it is. I think they just don't know why the info is relevant, and they're not going to just infodump on the NPCs. To you it looks like they're being cagey because you know a particular piece of info would sway the NPC into action, but I don't think they know that. If you presume they know what you do, it does look cagey - but if you presume they don't, it looks just like a normal interaction.

[Quertus]

I do think, and I might be wrong... it has happened before*, that people seem to feel that the players were entitled to the support from the Seelie. That, because they were introduced, the GM should guide them through the exact steps required to get the aid. I'm not convinced that's the case. For whatever reasons, be they good bad or completely bemusing, the steps we know** are that the players selected a faction to recruit to their cause, were asked to share information, then refused to share their information, then refused a payment, then left and were surprised and frustrated that it didn't yield the required support.

This is exactly the obvious result of that sequence of events.

There are different styles of gaming. In an "Epic" game, the PCs' plan may well have made perfect sense: simply mentioning the existence of the Black Hats to the White Hats should have been enough to get the White Hats to act. In a "Guided" (I'll usually call this something more like "baby-proofed") game, all the electric outlets unfun fail states are covered over, and the GM holds the players' hands to help them get where they want to go. Etc.

None of these other styles that produce other results is "wrong" (no matter how much I might deride them for being not my style and therefore clearly inferior). And, give or take the OP's communication style vs my own, it's still entirely possible that the game could have down down exactly as described if I were running it (how do English tenses work? is it "were" or "were to" or "had been"?).

To repeat myself, but use slightly different words, I agree, were I to run a similar scenario, the logic would likely run exactly the same, and the sequence of events laid out in your retelling could play out exactly the same*. But I've definitely known GMs / groups / play styles where that wasn't a given.

* The most likely difference being, when the Players say that they want their PCs to approach the Fey, I might ask why they thought that this was a good idea.


when you you go to ask someone for help you need to know they have the advantage

I think my favorite handling of this lesson comes from re:Zero. And it might even be Approachable enough for Talakeal's group to grok. Note to self: save corresponding clip for future use.

And, yeah, in conjunction with that, I tend to try to train my Players to think in terms of understanding what makes NPCs tick, evaluating what they want and how to leverage that, rather than just "roll Social".


The Fey were open to 2 way dialogue and the players weren't.

That may have been unintentional on your part, but, yeah, the Players in Talakeal's game rarely seem interested in dialogue, 2-way or otherwise. Which is yet another reason this didn't come across as "surprising"; Talakeal will have to tell us if this group is different, or follows the "2 lines of dialog qualifies as a monologue" logic of yore.

-----

You know, I'm gonna irrationally and without any real evidence blame cRPGs for this state of affairs. In cRPGs, quest-givers often just require the PCs to go do the "Good" thing, just because, and the NPCs often have really short "We must save my family!" single-sentence text blurbs. This certainly isn't the first time it's been suggested that Talakeal's players really just want a cRPG; I'll randomly throw my hat in on that approach this time around, too.

For those who like such things: would a cRPG have introduced the Fey, and had the Fey willing to respond to a particular "sound-byte" (ie, "the Fomorians are planning on attacking Muir Woods") without telegraphing six ways from Sunday that that's important to the Fey / without having an explicit (if optional) "Find out about the Fey" / "Find out about Muir Woods" quest?

[gbaji]

Yes that's really massive supposition on your part. People in my part of the woods actually talk to each other like normal folk. At times even I, when I'm GMing, will make suggestions because its something I think the characters would know and consider.

Yes. And that's the case at my table as well. However, not all tables play this way. I've certainly seen enough posts on this forum about problems in gaming sessions that can often be laid directly at the feet of lack of communication among players at the table and/or unwillingness (or direct intention) of the GM to not correct players when it's clear that their characters are doing something horribly wrong, not because the players are making a poor decision, but because the players have forgotten or misremembered some key bit of information which their characters presumambly would not have.

I don't think there's harm in observing this potential pitfall and pointing out ways to avoid it. And given that "they didn't follow the plan" is probably the number one thing Talakeal posts about when things go horribly wrong at his table, it might be relevant here. I can't be sure what went wrong, but I'm going to follow the same rule I follow every time I assess a story like this. I look at only what is literally directly stated as truth. At no point in his story did Talakeal say that the players knew that the werewolves were planning an attack on the woods in question. He stated that that's what the werewolves were planning (information he had), but not that his players knew this, discussed this, and were actively trying to prevent it.

So yeah. I'm going to ask the question: Did the players actualy know this key bit of information (and/or its relevance/importance)? And then follow up with the suggestion that if the players feel free to spend time discussing OOC what their plan is, and feel comfortable doing so right in front of the GM, then the GM has the ability to correct them if it becomes clear that the players are getting some facts wrong or are forgetting some key fact that their characters should know. And then situations like this can be avoided.


As I said, and I repeat it here again; in my experience this is fairly common and transcends GMs, systems, and campaigns. Its not the real live people at the table hiding information from each other. Its them being weird about talking to NPCs like they're plot devices or something.

Yeah. I've seen that. And I'm not discounting the possiblity that this is what's going on. IMO, that's still something that can be mitigated via open discussion at the table ahead of time though. Then, at the very least, Talakeal would not be baffled as to why they didn't tell the Seelie about the werewolves' plan. He'd know it, because it was discussed right in front of him. If the players literally say "We don't want to tell them about the attack on the woods, because <reasons>", then the GM knows this and knows that this was an intentional choice. If no such conversation occurs, then the GM will be left in a "baffled" state.


Probably doesn't help that that campaign is getting more and more intrigue/political bent, so that probably shaped the perception we had of the encounter

Yeah. I can see if there's a fair bit of intrigue going on. The PCs may not want to be super open about what they're doing to NPCs if they can avoid it. So that makes sense.

I guess the flip side though, is that if it became obvious that this was a deal breaker, at some point the PCs would keep increasing the amount of info until they got what they wanted/needed. You wouldn't just walk away without trying.

[Vahnavoi]

Again, blaming computer games seems like a red herring. Star Control 2 was (significantly) more complex than Quertus's stereotype of a computer roleplaying game, and it was published in 1992. Now, have all games since then been as good at this particular aspect? No. Not even close. But maybe, rather than blame the medium, take a look at why game designers failed to make their games as good. Because a lot of what computer game designers have to do are the same things what game masters have to do. It's unlikely computer games pioneered railroading players through a strict or badly thought plot, as opposed to copying bad practices from tabletop games.

[KorvinStarmast]

You frame this as "the PCs being cagey" but I don't think it is. I think they just don't know why the info is relevant, and they're not going to just infodump on the NPCs. To you it looks like they're being cagey because you know a particular piece of info would sway the NPC into action, but I don't think they know that. If you presume they know what you do, it does look cagey - but if you presume they don't, it looks just like a normal interaction. One of my players described this thing as "the DM and the Players have different mental maps" of the game world. While I still have problems with a couple of the players engaging, I really appreciated how he illustrated that for me. Sometimes it takes more than the three clue rule to offer connective tissue for the players to see how the world fits together.

[Talakeal]

What sort of payment were you expecting these child PCs even being able to offer the Sidhe in return for their help?

None.

Someone (Swine?) brought up the need for payment. One of the local Barons and his men-at-arms are already oathbound to defend the Queen's holdings in Muir Woods, so simply bringing it to his attention would have been more than sufficient.

However, the players know that the Seelie use oaths and promises as currency, and that the Fey are tricky, so they made it clear to every fey they met that they would not and could not offer anything in exchange for any information or assistance they might provide. Which is kind of an odd decision as their characters don't really know how fairy oaths work, and OOC all they are doing is trying to burn down future adventure hooks.



It's a mirror in that you don't want to communicate and they don't want to communicate, you both have excuses for why that's the right choice, but when the result of that is dysfunction neither of you are willing to actually change your behaviors to fix it.

I want to communicate. But I want to do it without meta-gaming.

To me, what you are saying is the equivalent of saying someone is being unreasonable for wanting to win a game but not being willing to cheat to do so.


I know an exact transcript isn't possible, but could you give your best recollection of the actual dialog which occured?

Because I've heard, over the course of this thread:
* The fey asked exactly what help the PCs wanted.
* The fey asked what the fomori were up to.
* The fey specifically said that they'd be more likely to help if the PCs told them all relevant info, bluntly and directly.

Those are three different things!! Things that can overlap, but still, different things! If after 50+ posts, we don't even know what the fey did or didn't say, then I'm not surprised your players didn't grok it either. I know you don't like posting "irrelevant" details, but I think they're only irrelevant to you because you have the full picture in your head.

It was a multi hour scene. I can't possibly remember everything that was said. Over the course of the evening, they talked to half a dozen or so different NPCs, all of whom asked some variant of "What are the fomorians planning?" although exactly how the question was phrased varied from individual to individual.

The PCs were fairly forthcoming about what help they wanted; they wanted the Sidhe to storm their building and kill the werewolves. They were told multiple times that the fey are not going to risk their lives and open war with the werewolves without a very good reason, and then asked exactly what the fomorians were up to, to which the PCs just gave evasive non-committal answers.


I have a feeling that no, it wasn't exactly like this in ways that matter, but that it differed in ways you're either filtering out, not sensitive to, or rejecting as relevant on principle.

This is almost certainly the case.


Did anyone ever explicitly say "If you tell us the details, we'll help you."? Did anyone explicitly say e.g. "We need to know where they're going to attack."?

No.

The fey didn't even know there was going to be an attack.

They made it clear that before they could help, they would need a good reason, and then directly asked what the formorians were planning.

The players then described the issue is "There will be more Fomorians in the city, and since we all know fomorians are evil, that isn't good!" without ever mentioning any sort of direct threat or plan posed by the fomori.


I see two Possible explanations here.

Your Players are Underthinking it
Viewing the game world as a matter of straightforward black and white conflict, they see the Formorians as Evil. The fact that they intend to attack the Changelings means the Changelings are good, and should therefore be willing to help them against the Formorians. Pointing out that the Formorians are an imminent and direct threat to the Changelings doesn't occur to them because the changelings shouldn't need to be directly threatened to try to help.

Or

Your Players are overthinking it
Knowing that by involving the Changelings they're entering a sort of Fae storyline, your players are being very paranoid about not accidentally making an agreement or slip of the tongue that lands them within some sort of fae-contract. Not unreasonable, but they're overcorrecting by refusing to say anything specific or definite at all. Rather than saying "The Formorians are planning to attack you", they want to make vague statements about how the Formor are bad news and need to be stopped, because they're worried that any specific statement they make might get fae-ruled into some sort of binding contract.
Or, alternatively, the entire party has decided that giving up the information is crossing some sort of line, and none of them want to be the one who makes that decision for the rest of the party. They're all waiting for somebody else to come forward and give up the actual information.

I think its both.

There is also a healthy dose of meta-gaming going on. The PC changeling is a master of contract magic, and constantly binds NPCs to oaths against their will. Though the rest of the party has no IC knowledge of this, the players are absolutely terrified of finding themselves in the same situation and makes sure to never make a definitive statement.


Did the PCs actuallly know that the werewolves were turning residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the Woods? Or did they only know that residents in their tenement were being attacked and turned? It's really easy sometimes for GMs to get so caught up in the details of the scenario they are running, that they fail to realize that they didn't actually tell the players some key bit of information (or didn't make it significant enough for them to remember when it matters later).

The PCs may very well have thought that "bad guys doing bad things to folks in our building" was the main point of what was going on, and not at all thinking in terms of "then they're going to use the folks they transformed to do bad things to some other people in some other location", nor think that was important.

The previous scene they had captured and interrogated one of the werewolves and learned what they were planning. They absolutely had this information, and it was absolutely fresh in their minds.

Now, whether or not they realized the important of what they learned, or had already forgotten it by the next scene, who can say?


That seems like an odd response. You're asking to borrow some powerful magic item (or something similar). I think it's reasonable for the person being asked to want to know what you are going to do with it.

If someone walked up to you and says "Can I borrow your gun for a few hours? I'll get it right back to you". What would be the very next thing out of our mouth?

Or... "Can I borrow your car?'

Or.... "Can I borrow your credit card?"

Or.... <insert anything someone might borrow from you for which you may be held accountable for its use>


It's not really unreasonable for NPCs to want to know this kind of stuff, and frankly absurd to think they'd lend powerful reliics to someone without asking such questions. It's definitely not none of their business. It's their item. It's absolutely 100% their business to know what you intend to do with it.

It seems odd to me as well. But, just because its odd, doesn't mean that this isn't what is going through the player's heads.


This is a bit of supposition on my part, but it may also have to do with the table habits in terms of in-character and out-of-character talk. I know that some GMs/players really want and expect that things said at the table (related to the game anyway) must be kept in context of what characters are actually saying or doing, and "table talk" is discouraged. I can't say to what degree this may affect players being "cagey", but it may explain how players being cagey may cause loss of information being transferred.

At my table we encourage table talk among the players. One PC, off on their own, making a decision about what to do? The entire table of players is going to be giving free/unsolicited advice. As long as they aren't passing character only knowledge, I have no issues with this at all. The result, though, is that scenarios like in the OP are just plain alien to me. My players would never have their characters do something like go to the Seelie and ask for help without first having spent 20-30 minutes at the table having a long discussion amongs themselves about what they're going to do there, who's going to talk, what they're going to say, what information to share, what to keep secret, etc.

Point being that at no point will I ever be confused as to why the PCs are or are not saying certain things to the NPCs in this sort of situation. If they've decided to not tell the Seelie about the attack in the woods, it will have been discussed, and a very open and verbal decision to "not tell the Seelie about the attack in the woods" would have been made. There woul be zero confusion on my part (or their's) as to what was going on, and why. Also, if they failed to discuss or mention the attack in the woods in their pre-planning for the meeting with the Seelie, I would know this. And guess what? I would probably ask them "hey guys. What are you planning to tell them about the planned attack in the woods?". Again. There is no secret here. Everything is discussed ahead of time. And I, as the GM, can be part of that discussion as well, if for no other reason than to ensure that they haven't actually forgotten key details about the adventure.


So yeah. The idea that they go there, apparently without any discussion ahead of time, and then.... what? We roleplay things out and hope the players remember what they were doing, and why, and every detail of the adventure? I'm not adverse to folks who want to play this out in this manner. Lots of tables do this, and are successful and have a great time. But if you are finding the players "forgetting the plan" frequently? Maybe have them talk this all out ahead of time, so that the players and the GM are all on the same page when the actual RP portion comes along.


Unless the players are being cagey or not discussing this kind of stuff ahead of time because they don't trust the GM. Which is a whole different problem.

I think I have started more than a few threads on this in the past.

My players absolutely do not come up with plans as a group. They each act as individuals, with no cohesive teamwork or strategy, regardless of whether they are engaging in combat, exploration, or a social scene.

[NichG]

I do think, and I might be wrong... it has happened before*, that people seem to feel that the players were entitled to the support from the Seelie. That, because they were introduced, the GM should guide them through the exact steps required to get the aid. I'm not convinced that's the case. For whatever reasons, be they good bad or completely bemusing, the steps we know** are that the players selected a faction to recruit to their cause, were asked to share information, then refused to share their information, then refused a payment, then left and were surprised and frustrated that it didn't yield the required support.


I wouldn't say the players were entitled to support, but rather that the sequence of events that actually happened was strong evidence of a lack of connection between the GM's view of the game and the players' view of the game, its expectations, even its rules.

It's like... if you're playing chess, and you put the other player's king in check, you say 'check'. And if they fail to address the 'check' you don't just capture their king and say 'I win', you point out that their king is still in check. If everyone understands the rules, that particular convention shouldn't be necessary at all in theory - its an adversarial game, you made an attack, they failed to respond, its your win right? But it must have happened enough that the other player missed something obvious and lost and the winner felt like it was a cheap win that this convention of not letting someone who is even in an adversarial position to you in a competitive game make a blunder *that* bad.

Here we have a sequence that if everyone were satisfied by it, it would make sense and be perfectly valid. But instead we see both sides are unsatisfied with the outcome. So while its completely fair in principle within the perspective of a game or a challenge to say 'your challenge was to figure out what to say to the Seelie to convince them to help', what actually ended up happening at the table was that everyone went away from that with some kind of bad feelings about the interaction.

So its not about who was right, or whether the game was fair, or stuff like that. Making things much more explicit, asking well-chosen clarifying questions, etc are all strategies to diagnose the problem and fix it - once the problem has been addressed, game can return to being immersive and subtle and whatnot (if thats what people actually want to deal with of course). As opposed to what is IMO an unreasonable view of being unwilling to compromise the game whatsoever in the name of fixing a problem rather than letting it recur or fester. It'd be like a grandmaster trying to teach someone chess, but insisting on playing at their full strength with no handicap and not ever explaining anything at all or commenting at all during play, because 'in real competitive chess your opponent isn't going to tell you you're making a dumb move' or something like that.

It wouldn't be reasonable for someone to expect their opponent to narrate their train of thought in response to potential moves during a chess competition. But it would be unreasonable for a much stronger player to expect a weaker player to play at their strength and furthermore refuse to adjust their game to help teach them.

[Talakeal]

That may have been unintentional on your part, but, yeah, the Players in Talakeal's game rarely seem interested in dialogue, 2-way or otherwise. Which is yet another reason this didn't come across as "surprising"; Talakeal will have to tell us if this group is different, or follows the "2 lines of dialog qualifies as a monologue" logic of yore.

:)


Hey, Talakeal, read this response about ten times.

One trend I've noticed in your horror stories is (from my perspective) that you know what would be an effective path for the players to take, but the players don't have the necessary information.

For a path you think the players should take, ask yourself what information is required to know that's the path, and ask yourself if the players have that info, and if the info is unambiguous enough that it can't be read as something else.

Additionally, don't hesitate to give them the requirements to do things. Like, it's 100% reasonable to tell them. "It's clear that they're not going to get involved unless you can show them that it's relevant to them, directly." That gets them in the right area. But they also need to be able to discover why it's relevant.

You frame this as "the PCs being cagey" but I don't think it is. I think they just don't know why the info is relevant, and they're not going to just infodump on the NPCs. To you it looks like they're being cagey because you know a particular piece of info would sway the NPC into action, but I don't think they know that. If you presume they know what you do, it does look cagey - but if you presume they don't, it looks just like a normal interaction.

From my perspective, most (but by no means all), of my horror stories are the result of tunnel vision. The player's first approach is not working for some reason or another, and then they dig in their heels and blame someone for its failure rather than simply trying another approach. In this case, since their first attempt to get the Seelie to storm their building based simply on the pressence of the Fomorians didn't work, that was the end of it.

I agree, info dumping on the NPCs hoping to stumble across the right keyword isn't a good model for a game, but when asked a direct question (What are the fomori planning?) that can be answered in a single sentence (To attack the werewolf caern in Muir Woods and free the monster trapped under it) that is a very different situation.

[Vyke]

I would, absolutely genuinely, love to hear one of the players' description of the scene.

[Vahnavoi]

I'd be more interested in their ages.

[Vyke]

I wouldn't say the players were entitled to support, but rather that the sequence of events that actually happened was strong evidence of a lack of connection between the GM's view of the game and the players' view of the game, its expectations, even its rules.

It's like... if you're playing chess, and you put the other player's king in check, you say 'check'. And if they fail to address the 'check' you don't just capture their king and say 'I win', you point out that their king is still in check. If everyone understands the rules, that particular convention shouldn't be necessary at all in theory - its an adversarial game, you made an attack, they failed to respond, its your win right? But it must have happened enough that the other player missed something obvious and lost and the winner felt like it was a cheap win that this convention of not letting someone who is even in an adversarial position to you in a competitive game make a blunder *that* bad.

Here we have a sequence that if everyone were satisfied by it, it would make sense and be perfectly valid. But instead we see both sides are unsatisfied with the outcome. So while its completely fair in principle within the perspective of a game or a challenge to say 'your challenge was to figure out what to say to the Seelie to convince them to help', what actually ended up happening at the table was that everyone went away from that with some kind of bad feelings about the interaction.

So its not about who was right, or whether the game was fair, or stuff like that. Making things much more explicit, asking well-chosen clarifying questions, etc are all strategies to diagnose the problem and fix it - once the problem has been addressed, game can return to being immersive and subtle and whatnot (if thats what people actually want to deal with of course). As opposed to what is IMO an unreasonable view of being unwilling to compromise the game whatsoever in the name of fixing a problem rather than letting it recur or fester. It'd be like a grandmaster trying to teach someone chess, but insisting on playing at their full strength with no handicap and not ever explaining anything at all or commenting at all during play, because 'in real competitive chess your opponent isn't going to tell you you're making a dumb move' or something like that.

It wouldn't be reasonable for someone to expect their opponent to narrate their train of thought in response to potential moves during a chess competition. But it would be unreasonable for a much stronger player to expect a weaker player to play at their strength and furthermore refuse to adjust their game to help teach them.

Sure I get that. And I agree that the ideal is that these events can happen again without the evident dissatisfaction.

However I will point out that your example of the chess game, while absolutely correct, isn't really what's happening here (or at least isn't what's supposed to be happening here) as chess is an obviously adversarial game (doubly so if I'm playing against my brother) while this isn't (or shouldn't be). And this isn't a misunderstanding of the rules. It seems, if anything, a misunderstanding of how social interaction works.

I am curious as to the age of the players.

I suppose it could be that they've misunderstood the game and think the challenge is "Find someone who can kill the werewolves" rather than "Find someone who can kill the werewolves and then convince them to do it". And is is possible that if Talakeal explicitly spells out what they need to say to who to win and then tells them they did well that they would be satisfied. But this thread suggests (again, Talakeal correct me if I'm wrong) that Talakeal would, in turn, be less satisfied by that approach.... and in this case the GM did appear to reach out to the players, to offer them the info that they haven't closed the sale and need to offer more and that the players refused to close the distance.

That said, the biggest thing I can say about finding out why they made the choices they did is the thing I said in my very post in the thread... ask them. Explicitly.

[Talakeal]

I'd be more interested in their ages.

Forty, give or take five years in either direction.


I suppose it could be that they've misunderstood the game and think the challenge is "Find someone who can kill the werewolves" rather than "Find someone who can kill the werewolves and then convince them to do it". And is is possible that if Talakeal explicitly spells out what they need to say to who to win and then tells them they did well that they would be satisfied. But this thread suggests (again, Talakeal correct me if I'm wrong) that Talakeal would, in turn, be less satisfied by that approach.... and in this case the GM did appear to reach out to the players, to offer them the info that they haven't closed the sale and need to offer more and that the players refused to close the distance.

Well... if that was the case they failed here as well.

Changelings are no match for werewolves in a fight, and when the werewolves are backed up by an army of fomori and banes, and have home field advantage... yeah, that would be a slaughter.

The only way to really beat them in combat is to negotiate an alliance between the various factions who are involved (there are several courts of changelings, several packs of werewolves, and a group of hunters all of whom have an interest in seeing them put down).

[Vahnavoi]

Every single game where the game master plays adversarial roles is an adversarial game. The fact that a game master might also play non-adversarial roles doesn't change that. To the contrary, it poses an extra challenge to the game master, because they have to figure out ways to make their adversarial roles and non-adversarial roles distinct from one another.

It is possible to make this easy: a game master can, literally, put on a white hat or a black hat to inform the players which side they are playing at any given moment. Talakeal's (self-created) problem is that he doesn't want to do this. He doesn't want to hand "metagame" information to his players, he wants his players to figure out which roles are which based on just what their characters know. That's not in itself illegitimate, but it may make the game more difficult than what Talakeal's players are willing and able to play. This a recurring problem with Talakeal's groups.

---


Forty, give or take five years in either direction

Well, sadly, this means they're past the age where you could reasonably expect the problem to fix itself in a few years when your players grow up. You are playing with some childish forty-year-olds.

Next question: do they play drunk?

[Talakeal]

It is possible to make this easy: a game master can, literally, put on a white hat or a black hat to inform the players which side they are playing at any given moment. Talakeal's (self-created) problem is that he doesn't want to do this. He doesn't want to hand "metagame" information to his players, he wants his players to figure out which roles are which based on just what their characters know. That's not in itself illegitimate, but it may make the game more difficult than what Talakeal's players are willing and able to play. This a recurring problem with Talakeal's groups.

What are you actually saying here?

It seems like you are saying that I invented the idea of keeping in character knowledge and out of character knowledge separate in RPGs? Which is, of course, ridiculous, but I can't think of any other way to parse this paragraph.

[Vyke]

Every single game where the game master plays adversarial roles is an adversarial game.

I absolutely don't agree.

[NichG]

Sure I get that. And I agree that the ideal is that these events can happen again without the evident dissatisfaction.

However I will point out that your example of the chess game, while absolutely correct, isn't really what's happening here (or at least isn't what's supposed to be happening here) as chess is an obviously adversarial game (doubly so if I'm playing against my brother) while this isn't (or shouldn't be). And this isn't a misunderstanding of the rules. It seems, if anything, a misunderstanding of how social interaction works.

The structure of my argument here is that even in an adversarial, competitive game sometimes you have protocols that call on you to help the other player. So for a cooperative game, it should be even less like 'cheating' to do so or expect someone to do so! E.g. the adversarial nature of chess vs a tabletop RPG makes the fact that you do it in chess a stronger example, unless you hold the position that its less natural to help out the other players in a cooperative game than it is an adversarial game.


I am curious as to the age of the players.

I suppose it could be that they've misunderstood the game and think the challenge is "Find someone who can kill the werewolves" rather than "Find someone who can kill the werewolves and then convince them to do it". And is is possible that if Talakeal explicitly spells out what they need to say to who to win and then tells them they did well that they would be satisfied. But this thread suggests (again, Talakeal correct me if I'm wrong) that Talakeal would, in turn, be less satisfied by that approach.... and in this case the GM did appear to reach out to the players, to offer them the info that they haven't closed the sale and need to offer more and that the players refused to close the distance.

The thing is, what I'm suggesting at least is to do this explicitly *as a diagnostic*, not just as a permanent forever new style of GM-ing. Its to avoid OOC cageyness. You frame a hypothesis like 'the players don't actually remember the detail that the Seelie need to hear' and then you test that hypothesis by actually reminding them and seeing if their behavior changes. Or the hypothesis that 'the players are afraid of contract magic'. Or the hypothesis that 'the players see NPCs as objects and want to roll social rather than actually have to talk'. Or any of these explanations people have raised.

So rather than just saying 'aha, I believe I understand, now I feel smart' and continuing to do the same thing, you actually try to elicit the information you're missing. And while I agree that 'asking the players explicitly' is the absolute first thing to do as you wrote, Talakeal did say they did that and got a non-answer. So to really figure out what's going on, you need to act differently and see if anything changes.

That necessarily means acting differently than your passive preferences of how to run game. But perhaps not forever - you're doing it to find out what you don't know, so when you know it you can re-assess at that point. Of course, if there is a systematic misalignment between the sorts of games Talakeal would like to run and the types of games the players would like to play, then yeah there will either be forever problems or forever changes.

If in that situation everyone is clear on why things are going wrong but no one wants to change and no one wants to stop, well, then basically nothing anyone says can possibly help anyhow.


That said, the biggest thing I can say about finding out why they made the choices they did is the thing I said in my very post in the thread... ask them. Explicitly.

Yes! Even if this was in some form done and didn't work, this is absolutely the first thing to do. And if it doesn't work, do it again! The counter-strategy to cagey communication is to pin down specific details with highly specific questions that don't leave any room for misinterpretation. If high levels of abstraction are being used to evade, ask about concrete things - 'what would you do if...?' rather than 'why?'. Make it necessary to say 'I don't want to answer' rather than leaving room to just say something that isn't an answer as if it is one, etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

However, the players know that the Seelie use oaths and promises as currency, and that the Fey are tricky, so they made it clear to every fey they met that they would not and could not offer anything in exchange for any information or assistance they might provide. Which is kind of an odd decision as their characters don't really know how fairy oaths work, and OOC all they are doing is trying to burn down future adventure hooks. Which parses as "they are already meta gaming." And that's par for the course at your table, right?

I want to communicate. But I want to do it without meta-gaming. That's an own goal. The caution against meta gaming is not a binary switch of off/on. The caution is to use as little as can be managed.

There is also a healthy dose of meta-gaming going on. The PC changeling is a master of contract magic, and constantly binds NPCs to oaths against their will.
And he's worried that NPCs might to that to him? Quelle surprise.

The previous scene they had captured and interrogated one of the werewolves and learned what they were planning. They absolutely had this information, and it was absolutely fresh in their minds. Now, whether or not they realized the important of what they learned, or had already forgotten it by the next scene, who can say? Link to the Three Clue Rule goes here.

My players absolutely do not come up with plans as a group. They each act as individuals, with no cohesive teamwork or strategy, regardless of whether they are engaging in combat, exploration, or a social scene. Which is a more profound and basic problem than your complaint about questions and answers with NPCs.

I'd be more interested in their ages. Yeah.

Forty, give or take five years in either direction. Kids these days (that jokes' on me, given my silver hair).

Every single game where the game master plays adversarial roles is an adversarial game. The fact that a game master might also play non-adversarial roles doesn't change that. To the contrary, it poses an extra challenge to the game master, because they have to figure out ways to make their adversarial roles and non-adversarial roles distinct from one another. Yes, that is GM / DM 101, and requires a certain level of trust at the table.

You are playing with some childish forty-year-olds.

Next question: do they play drunk? Is there any other way to play RPGs? :smallcool:

keeping in character knowledge and out of character knowledge separate in RPGs If you take that principle to an extreme, you create your own problems. Back to my earlier allusion to "the myth of player / character separation" but that really is its own topic.

I absolutely don't agree. It's a matter of degree, but this will be present since the DM / GM has to role play the adversaries.

[Vahnavoi]

What are you actually saying here?

It seems like you are saying that I invented the idea of keeping in character knowledge and out of character knowledge separate in RPGs? Which is, of course, ridiculous, but I can't think of any other way to parse this paragraph.

There is no such thing as character knowledge. Characters don't exist as independent entities that know things. Everything a character is supposed to know has to be known to some real person at the table. For things a character is supposed to NOT know, you have two options:
1) player doesn't know it either.
2) A player knows it but you are asking them to act as if they don't know.

There's a corollary to the above: if there's information that isn't know directly and should be deduced from other instead, but players aren't capable of carrying out that deduction, that information isn't known either. The only way that information can become playable is if you add more hints to make the information easier to deduce, up to and including flat out stating it to your players.

The point NichG has very elaborately tried to get to you is that you are unreasonably resistant to doing so. It isn't cheating when your players genuinely can't do it on their own. It's helping. Now, if you want to build up to them being able to do it without help, play simpler games first that teach asking and answering questions. If they refuse, accept your loss and move on. They're past their obligatory learning period, you (sadly) can't force them to do it until they pass. :smalltongue:

[Talakeal]

And he's worried that NPCs might to that to him? Quelle surprise.

Oh no. He is actually a pookha and never gives straight answers anyway. (Pookha are prohibited from ever telling the truth.)

The problem is that the other three characters, who aren't pookhas and don't have any idea how changeling magic works, are also refusing to give any direct answers for no IC reason.


Which is a more profound and basic problem than your complaint about questions and answers with NPCs.

Trust me, I know it. I have created multiple threads on it in the past.


The point NichG has very elaborately tried to get to you is that you are unreasonably resistant to doing so. It isn't cheating when your players genuinely can't do it on their own. It's helping. Now, if you want to build up to them being able to do it without help, play simpler games first that teach asking and answering questions. If they refuse, accept your loss and move on. They're past their obligatory learning period, you (sadly) can't force them to do it until they pass. :smalltongue:

Where do you draw the line between "helping" and "railroading" though?

If the GM is always willing to break character to show the players the "optimal" path, that really sounds like a bad railroad to me.

As is, the game is going in a different direction that I anticipated, with the players making deals with the fairy underworld to perform acts of goblin-sponsored terrorism, which, while maybe not as happy as a unified crusade to crush evil, is certainly an interesting and unexpected direction for the campaign to go!

Unless you have players who are intentionally failing and making sub-optimal decisions for the sake of drama of course, but as I said above, that is really less of an RPG and more of a collaborative storytelling game.

[Unoriginal]

Where do you draw the line between "helping" and "railroading" though?

If the GM is always willing to break character to show the players the "optimal" path, that really sounds like a bad railroad to me.

It's not a question of showing an "optimal" path, and it's not "breaking character".

A GM must go out-of-character all the time for a lot of different reasons. Making sure the players have understood what is going on is one of those reasons.

If a player misremember the title of the antagonist and says "my PC attacks the Baron" when the Baron is an ally when the antagonist is actually the Earl, are you not going to ask them "uh, do you mean the Earl?", or are you just going to let the PC do unprompted murder because the player did a mistake while speaking?

Same way if the Lord of the Fey tell the PCs they can name a magic item in his vault and he'll give it to them, as the reward they agreed on, and the players ask for the Sword of Fire instead of the Phoenix Sword, which is the item they need, are you going to make the PCs get the wrong sword because the players misspoke?


TTRPGs are games of communication. You can't go "I'm in-character right now, so I can't communicate with the players" and not expect troubles.

[Talakeal]

It's not a question of showing an "optimal" path, and it's not "breaking character".

A GM must go out-of-character all the time for a lot of different reasons. Making sure the players have understood what is going on is one of those reasons.

If a player misremember the title of the antagonist and says "my PC attacks the Baron" when the Baron is an ally when the antagonist is actually the Earl, are you not going to ask them "uh, do you mean the Earl?", or are you just going to let the PC do unprompted murder because the player did a mistake while speaking?

Same way if the Lord of the Fey tell the PCs they can name a magic item in his vault and he'll give it to them, as the reward they agreed on, and the players ask for the Sword of Fire instead of the Phoenix Sword, which is the item they need, are you going to make the PCs get the wrong sword because the players misspoke?


TTRPGs are games of communication. You can't go "I'm in-character right now, so I can't communicate with the players" and not expect troubles.

Misspeaking is not the same thing as suggesting action.

A better analogy would be "I attack the earl!" "You should threaten him instead." Or "I pick the Phoenix Sword!" "You should pick the ring of invisibility."

[NichG]

Where do you draw the line between "helping" and "railroading" though?

If the GM is always willing to break character to show the players the "optimal" path, that really sounds like a bad railroad to me.


You aren't breaking character to show the players the optimal path. You're breaking character because the players are failing at something they (said) they intended to do, due to misunderstanding the situation.

It would be railroading if you forced the players to do things your way. If you help the players understand what is necessary for them to succeed at doing things their way, its the opposite of railroading - you're enabling their agency rather than your own. You're making it clear what the actual choice is so they can make it, rather than making the choice for them.

Like, if you say 'if you want to get their assistance without offering things in trade, you need to tell them what you learned in detail' and they could say 'sure, we do that!' or 'no, we don't want to do that' and you're willing to run with it either way, its not a railroad. It's an informed choice. Agency only exists in the presence of informed choices.

[Mastikator]

Where do you draw the line between "helping" and "railroading" though?

If the GM is always willing to break character to show the players the "optimal" path, that really sounds like a bad railroad to me.

As is, the game is going in a different direction that I anticipated, with the players making deals with the fairy underworld to perform acts of goblin-sponsored terrorism, which, while maybe not as happy as a unified crusade to crush evil, is certainly an interesting and unexpected direction for the campaign to go!

Unless you have players who are intentionally failing and making sub-optimal decisions for the sake of drama of course, but as I said above, that is really less of an RPG and more of a collaborative storytelling game.

I am a different person than the one your asking, but I feel compelled to opine nonetheless, and I do think the player's shiftiness and lack of integrity that hangs them. But, I don't think you need be helpless against the players' counterproductive methods. Pause the game and ask the player. The player knows the magic words, the NPC asked them to say the magic words, the player is vague and refuses to say the magic words. The player is being obtuse.

You can pause the game and ask the player why they aren't saying exactly what the fomorians' plans are. You know that the player just needs to say "the fomorians were planning an attack on the werewolves in Muir Woods", the NPC asked what the fomorians plans were.

"Pause the game for a second, the changeling asked you what the fomorian's plans were, why didn't you say that they are planning an attack on the werewolves in the Muir Woods?". They might just give a reason, or give the changeling a straight answer. This is all in the interest of moving the game along BTW, you're not their therapist, you have no obligation to fix them. If they remain obtuse, kick them out of the group. They are obviously ruining your fun while not having any themselves and it doesn't really matter what their problem is. Because it's their problem, the only problem you need to fix is that some players at your table are at your table.

[Vahnavoi]

Where do you draw the line between "helping" and "railroading" though?

I don't. It's not useful juxtaposition. As with any other disability, you give as much support as the other person requires to complete a move. Then you gradually lessen the support.


If the GM is always willing to break character to show the players the "optimal" path, that really sounds like a bad railroad to me.

Nobody's suggesting you always do it. This isn't a binary. For any situation, you have a range of options for how much information to give to your players.

Also, and this isn't the first time I say this: both you and your players keep using "optimal" wrong and you should excise it from your vocabulary.

[Talakeal]

Also, and this isn't the first time I say this: both you and your players keep using "optimal" wrong and you should excise it from your vocabulary.

Please elaborate.

[Unoriginal]

Misspeaking is not the same thing as suggesting action.

A better analogy would be "I attack the earl!" "You should threaten him instead." Or "I pick the Phoenix Sword!" "You should pick the ring of invisibility."

It isn't a better analogy, you're talking about an entirely different situation.

Players will misspeak, players will misremember, and players will plainly misunderstand. And GMs will do the same too.

So it is important for the people around the table to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Ex: "I attack the earl!"

"Just so we're clear, you weren't given the signal to start the attack now, and your allies are waiting for said signal. Do you want to attack regardless?"

Ex:Player 1: "I pick the ring of invisibility, it's clearly the best item this guy has."

GM: "Are you sure? You can do that if you want, but remember your mission requires the Phoenix Sword."

Player 1: "Oh I thought PC2 would ask for it."

GM: "No, the agreement was one item for the whole group. You didn't take the deal for more."

Player 2: "Yeah, we didn't want to give the Fey Lord any more than what he already got."

[Vahnavoi]

Please elaborate.

Both you and your players repeatedly use "optimal" in the same way as the junior engineer in the joke about spherical cows in a vacuum.

As in:

"I have found the solution, provided we ignore all factors that would prevent my solution from working."

[Kish]

The only way to really beat them in combat is to negotiate an alliance between the various factions who are involved (there are several courts of changelings, several packs of werewolves, and a group of hunters all of whom have an interest in seeing them put down).
Well now wait.

Is that what they decided to do, or is it what you decided they need to do?

That is, do you have any plans for future gaming sessions that don't hinge on "the PCs beat the Black Spiral Dancers in combat"?

If it's what they decided to try, then what to do is simple. Say something like, "Given your paranoid unwillingness to share information with changelings, trying to get them to ally with you is probably futile." It's not GM metagaming because no part of it hinges on being the GM. This is an observation you could make as another player or as someone who wandered by a game that was taking place in a semipublic environment and watched for five minutes. If your "don't cheat" means "don't say anything at all out of character," well, then you have a problem.

If it's your plot outline, well. Anything that your plot needs them to do needs to be both obvious and effectively a gimme. It is, for whatever reason, not obvious to them that they need to actually treat at least some changelings as allies: if this is about them following plot rails then you need to up the level of information you're giving them about where those rails are, however baffling you find the need. (And in this case I can't wait to hear about what happens when they reach the part that actually sounds quite counterintuitive to me, where a group of near-helpless supernaturals are supposed to voluntarily approach a group of hunters.)

[neriana]

Another way to beat them popped into my head while I was reading the insistence that there was only one way. I'm sure others could think of other methods as well. But if the GM only allows One True Path, well...

[Talakeal]

If it's what they decided to try, then what to do is simple. Say something like, "Given your paranoid unwillingness to share information with changelings, trying to get them to ally with you is probably futile." It's not GM meta-gaming because no part of it hinges on being the GM. This is an observation you could make as another player or as someone who wandered by a game that was taking place in a semi-public environment and watched for five minutes. If your "don't cheat" means "don't say anything at all out of character," well, then you have a problem.

This is what I did say, eventually, when it became clear that they weren't going to volunteer any additional information.

The players then got frustrated and went on a rant about how I was wasting their team with impossible goals and unreasonable NPCs.

At which point I was like "Guys, its not "impossible", you just had to tell them what the werewolves were planning, which the "unreasonable" NPCs directly asked you multiple times."


Although I have absolutely been accused of railroading in the past for making suggestions that any random person off the street could come up with like "If the monster is too strong for you to fight, why don't you try talking to it or sneaking past it instead?" Heck, I remember my Dad rage quitting the very first RPG I ever tried to run because he got stuck in a room in Heroquest and I suggested that he try searching for secret doors. (For those who don't know, Heroquest was a Milton Bradley board game that is basically baby's first dungeon crawler, and only has like five possible actions characters can take, one of which is search for secret doors).




Well now wait.

Is that what they decided to do, or is it what you decided they need to do?

That is, do you have any plans for future gaming sessions that don't hinge on "the PCs beat the Black Spiral Dancers in combat"?

If it's your plot outline, well. Anything that your plot needs them to do needs to be both obvious and effectively a gimme. It is, for whatever reason, not obvious to them that they need to actually treat at least some changelings as allies: if this is about them following plot rails then you need to up the level of information you're giving them about where those rails are, however baffling you find the need. (And in this case I can't wait to hear about what happens when they reach the part that actually sounds quite counterintuitive to me, where a group of near-helpless supernaturals are supposed to voluntarily approach a group of hunters.)


Another way to beat them popped into my head while I was reading the insistence that there was only one way. I'm sure others could think of other methods as well. But if the GM only allows One True Path, well...

As I said... players (especially those online) are hyper vigilant for the slightest hint of perceived railroading, as the "rail-road GM" is one of gaming's biggest boogey men.


For clarification, the Black Spiral Dancers and their Fomorian minions are by far the strongest faction of those who are currently "on the board". None of the others have a realistic chance of beating them alone in a straight fight, although if several of them work together, defeating them in a straight fight is a definite possibility.

I am absolutely open to the a resolution which does not end with the BSDs being defeated in combat, or someone coming up with an out of the blue plan / insane luck that allows them to be defeated without involving the other factions who are currently involved.

[Quertus]

Again, blaming computer games seems like a red herring. Star Control 2 was (significantly) more complex than Quertus's stereotype of a computer roleplaying game, and it was published in 1992. Now, have all games since then been as good at this particular aspect? No. Not even close. But maybe, rather than blame the medium, take a look at why game designers failed to make their games as good. Because a lot of what computer game designers have to do are the same things what game masters have to do. It's unlikely computer games pioneered railroading players through a strict or badly thought plot, as opposed to copying bad practices from tabletop games.

I mean, I did say things like "randomly" and "without any real evidence" - you could turn that whole text blue, and it wouldn't change the meaning significantly. This was just a solid example of a different style of play that people have already suggested is what Talakeal's players actually want. Speaking of red herrings,



Haha. I can tell you, kids are among the most likely groups of people to threaten horrible atrocities to your face, with the only thing holding them back often being lack of vocabulary. The difference between real world and a game is that real kids rarely have the capacity to actually follow through. In the real world, a kid threatening to kill you and your dog is, typically, mildly distressing and not at all threatening. In a game, kids will do just what they promised and dance on your grave too. Kids are mean.

Yeah, I didn't want to say anything, but I completely agree, real kids really do come up with things like that. Doubly so when they're players in an RPG, IME.


You frame this as "the PCs being cagey" but I don't think it is. I think they just don't know why the info is relevant, and they're not going to just infodump on the NPCs. To you it looks like they're being cagey because you know a particular piece of info would sway the NPC into action, but I don't think they know that. If you presume they know what you do, it does look cagey - but if you presume they don't, it looks just like a normal interaction.

Yeah, I thought it was a given that the PCs don't know that that information is important in this context.


I want to communicate. But I want to do it without meta-gaming.

To me, what you are saying is the equivalent of saying someone is being unreasonable for wanting to win a game but not being willing to cheat to do so.without any real evidence

Talakeal, that's the point of OOC conversations, to facilitate communication. It isn't metagaming, it isn't cheating, it's using the tool as intended, for what it's designed to do.

Also, all the Fey asking the same question (or variants thereon) was much more metagamey and immersion-breaking than asking an OOC question ever could be.


My players absolutely do not come up with plans as a group. They each act as individuals, with no cohesive teamwork or strategy, regardless of whether they are engaging in combat, exploration, or a social scene.

So it's all of them? That's really odd. I wouldn't expect... oh, wait:



There is also a healthy dose of meta-gaming going on. The PC changeling is a master of contract magic, and constantly binds NPCs to oaths against their will. Though the rest of the party has no IC knowledge of this, the players are absolutely terrified of finding themselves in the same situation and makes sure to never make a definitive statement.

OK, you've got your answer. /thread?

Also, no need for you to be surprised about it, when it's this obvious that anything where a direct answer is required just isn't going to happen in this game. /game?

[Unoriginal]

This is what I did say, eventually, when it became clear that they weren't going to volunteer any additional information.

The players then got frustrated and went on a rant about how I was wasting their team with impossible goals and unreasonable NPCs.

At which point I was like "Guys, its not "impossible", you just had to tell them what the werewolves were planning, which the "unreasonable" NPCs directly asked you multiple times."

What did the players say in response to that?



Although I have absolutely been accused of railroading in the past for making suggestions that any random person off the street could come up with like "If the monster is too strong for you to fight, why don't you try talking to it or sneaking past it instead?" Heck, I remember my Dad rage quitting the very first RPG I ever tried to run because he got stuck in a room in Heroquest and I suggested that he try searching for secret doors. (For those who don't know, Heroquest was a Milton Bradley board game that is basically baby's first dungeon crawler, and only has like five possible actions characters can take, one of which is search for secret doors).







As I said... players (especially those online) are hyper vigilant for the slightest hint of perceived railroading, as the "rail-road GM" is one of gaming's biggest boogey men.

Those are out-of-table issues, they can't be dealt via in-character interactions.

Addressing the root of the issue out-of-table is the only way you can deal with it. Even if it may mean"stop playing with those people because you're just not compatible".



Talakeal, that's the point of OOC conversations, to facilitate communication. It isn't metagaming, it isn't cheating, it's using the tool as intended, for what it's designed to do.

I 100% agree.

This is really important, Talakeal.

What you call meta-gaming is what is needed to make any TTRPG work.



Also, all the Fey asking the same question (or variants thereon) was much more metagamey and immersion-breaking than asking an OOC question ever could be.

This isn't really true. People with similar goals and similar ressources will often have similar questions when asked to use those ressources.

Like if my PC was going around town asking merchants to invest in a project, I would expect several variations on "how much would it cost us and how much are we getting in return?". If my PC was talking to lawyers about defending a teammate who got framed for a crime in a superhero game, I would expect several variations on "how are you proposing to prove he was framed?". Etc.

[Duff]

Why not just ask the players, bluntly, what they are trying to accomplish by not giving the NPCs the info?

Furthermore, I'm not familiar with Werewolf/Changeling, but there are probably a stat or skill or trait that indicates how good a PC is at reading others, right?

If that's the case, as a DM it's worth to look to the PCs who are the best at doing it and state "you can sense that [insert NPC name] won't help unless you give them something concrete to react to" or the like.

And some NPC would just ask them point blank "tell me what's happening if you want my help" of course.

Now if it's a question of the players not remembering what actually went on in enough details, then you can just ask "do you tell them everything or leave something out?" then timeskip over the "PCs explain the situation" part of the conversation.

In a general sense - This
Plus have a diversity of approaches. In this case, once you realise how the players are playing it, throw in an NPC who's intrigued by the mystery. They don't ask "Why?" they ask "What do you want me to do?" "Where should we meet?"

Another consideration. After the first 2 interactions, you realise they're going no where. Ask them to roll social skills. If it's a fail tell them "Your approach is unsuccessful, unless you want to try something significantly different, we'll close the scene there"
They still don't have the help you wanted them to, but with only a couple of conversations and a roll, there's less game time invested in something which might look like a waste of time.

Though how much of this you can apply to your game is hard for me to know

[Telok]

There is also a healthy dose of meta-gaming going on. The PC changeling is a master of contract magic, and constantly binds NPCs to oaths against their will. Though the rest of the party has no IC knowledge of this, the players are absolutely terrified of finding themselves in the same situation and makes sure to never make a definitive statement.

Danger! Will Robinson! DANGER! Red alert! Warning warning warning!

So um... I think this is a big one. The players are doing stuff to NPCs and are terrified of it happening to them. Probably they've worked themselves up to the point where they're expecting a bunch of karma for this to hit them as soon as they blink. Being at a sufficient remove I can fully believe that they'll be so busy staring at their boogeyman of fey oaths/mind control that they'll walk backwards into something worse.

You said they're cutting deals with unseelie goblins now?

I've come to think that a lot of the D&D-type TTRPG & CRPG scene instills a sort of... I'd call it "transactional violence interaction equality" between PCs and NPCs. That is: PCs and real opponent NPCs (not mooks & chaff) are given abilities to annihilate each other and are expected to use them as often as possible. As time/xp/levels increase these abilities increase on both sides at about the same rate. The players are thus conditioned to expect that any "named NPC", equating a name with importance as reinforced by lots and lots of mow-through-nameless-mooks media, is capable of utterly crushing them in order to be an "on level" or "cr appropriate" opponent. It follows the "NPCs must be X dangerous to fight the PCs and be interesting" paradigm followed by strongly scaling rpg combat systems. Players (often including GMs) then extend this assumption to everything else. If your players have a master of contract magic PC among them they may be assuming that "named NPCs" will also have that level of screwjob power and are going to use it as much as the PC does if given any chance to do so.


First, the biggest correlate with this kind of behaviour is being a kid, and kids these days are too young to have played games with a word parser. :smalltongue: Second, those old games actually required reading skills and being able to give specific info: if...
...Anyways, backs to kids... people below a certain level of development have trouble comprehending real people as independently existing things that aren't there just for their benefit...
.... I can tell you, kids are among the most likely groups of people to threaten horrible atrocities to your face, with the only thing holding them back often being lack of vocabulary. The difference between real world and a game is that real kids rarely have the capacity to actually follow through. In the real world, a kid threatening to kill you and your dog is, typically, mildly distressing and not at all threatening. In a game, kids will do just what they promised and dance on your grave too. Kids are mean.

You know some ****ed up kids then. I used to believe like that when I was single. Extended interaction with kids cured me of that. The very large majority are nice kids who feel bad when they hear about people or animals getting hurt even on accident. They perfectly well understand that other people are actual people with homes and families like theirs. You're also coming across as trying to imply that other folks players & GMs have the emotional development of three year olds who pull wings off flies for fun.

And the games these days absolutely have the same game logic as the old word parsers. That logic is often hidden behind a "talk choices" menu, but its the exact same logic. Pick the right input, get the good output. Pick the wrong input, get a bad output. Didn't talk to the right NPC or inspect the right doodad and you don't have the right keyword/menu option. Same logic, different facade.

[Vahnavoi]

You know some ****ed up kids then.

Yes, including some requiring special intervention by social services or law enforcement. That's not what this is about, though. Pay attention to specific arguments made: you being likeliest to meet a behaviour in a group, isn't the same as majority of a group engaging in it at any given moment. Even with a phase every person goes through, it won't occur in everyone at the same time nor be relevant for all of their lives. It still stands that if somebody's babbling about how they'll kill everybody over a minor slight, that's more likely to be (say) a 7-year-old having a fit who hasn't yet learned to emotionally regulate, versus a functional adult. (Etc.) And it isn't rare. Especially not in context of games.


You're also coming across as trying to imply that other folks players & GMs have the emotional development of three year olds who pull wings off flies for fun.

Implying it? I'm outright stating it. Statistically it has to hold true for some fraction of players. Some of those three-year-olds grow up to fifteen-year-olds and then forty-year-olds who still pull wings off flies for fun. Some of those people end up playing tabletop roleplaying games. The same train of thought applies to every atypical neurology, psychological disorder and social issue you'd care to name, save for those that render a person entirely unable to play these games. That's just a fact of life.

It's not even a particular interesting fact. It would be more interesting if you know a player well and they only behave oddly in a game. Even better if it's just in one game and not all games they play. That kind of knowledge allows us to get to what it is about the game and its rules causing it, rather than just the people playing them.


And the games these days absolutely have the same game logic as the old word parsers. That logic is often hidden behind a "talk choices" menu, but its the exact same logic. Pick the right input, get the good output. Pick the wrong input, get a bad output. Didn't talk to the right NPC or inspect the right doodad and you don't have the right keyword/menu option. Same logic, different facade.

Being reductive about how games work isn't helpful. There is an actual difference between having to type a whole word versus checking boxes in a multiple choice, even if both technically work by "pick right input, get right output". This can be shown mathematically: if you have to input a four letter word in English, you have 27^4 input choices. If you are clicking a dialogue box, you only have as many input choices as a programmer thought to include. One of these formats is much easier to navigate by pure trial-and-error and thus requires and fosters different skills in the player.

[Vyke]

The structure of my argument here is that even in an adversarial, competitive game sometimes you have protocols that call on you to help the other player. So for a cooperative game, it should be even less like 'cheating' to do so or expect someone to do so! E.g. the adversarial nature of chess vs a tabletop RPG makes the fact that you do it in chess a stronger example, unless you hold the position that its less natural to help out the other players in a cooperative game than it is an adversarial game.



The thing is, what I'm suggesting at least is to do this explicitly *as a diagnostic*, not just as a permanent forever new style of GM-ing. Its to avoid OOC cageyness. You frame a hypothesis like 'the players don't actually remember the detail that the Seelie need to hear' and then you test that hypothesis by actually reminding them and seeing if their behavior changes. Or the hypothesis that 'the players are afraid of contract magic'. Or the hypothesis that 'the players see NPCs as objects and want to roll social rather than actually have to talk'. Or any of these explanations people have raised.

So rather than just saying 'aha, I believe I understand, now I feel smart' and continuing to do the same thing, you actually try to elicit the information you're missing. And while I agree that 'asking the players explicitly' is the absolute first thing to do as you wrote, Talakeal did say they did that and got a non-answer. So to really figure out what's going on, you need to act differently and see if anything changes.

That necessarily means acting differently than your passive preferences of how to run game. But perhaps not forever - you're doing it to find out what you don't know, so when you know it you can re-assess at that point. Of course, if there is a systematic misalignment between the sorts of games Talakeal would like to run and the types of games the players would like to play, then yeah there will either be forever problems or forever changes.

If in that situation everyone is clear on why things are going wrong but no one wants to change and no one wants to stop, well, then basically nothing anyone says can possibly help anyhow.


Got it, I agree.

[Vyke]

It's a matter of degree, but this will be present since the DM / GM has to role play the adversaries.

I still don't agree. GMs and players aren't adversaries. Their positions aren't opposed. A GM is presenting and adjudicating the conflict required for the game to be a game. The players aren't trying to beat the GM, they're trying to resolve the conflict. The GM is not trying to beat the players.*

Y'know.... hopefully.

*Because the GM just wins in that case.

[kyoryu]

I still don't agree. GMs and players aren't adversaries. Their positions aren't opposed. A GM is presenting and adjudicating the conflict required for the game to be a game. The players aren't trying to beat the GM, they're trying to resolve the conflict. The GM is not trying to beat the players.*

Y'know.... hopefully.

*Because the GM just wins in that case.

I think the GM wears many hats. At one level, they're fans of the players. At another level, they're neutral arbiters of the rules. And at a third level, they're adversaries.

Like, in combat? The combat is there because the "fan of the players" GM (or the "neutral arbiter") set it up to be an interesting and engaging encounter. They want the players to have fun.

However, in a lot of cases, the best fun is had in those situations when the adversarial GM tries their best to play hard, but constrained by what the "fan" GM gave them.

[Unoriginal]

The GM is not trying to beat the players.*

Y'know.... hopefully.

*Because the GM just wins in that case.

As an aside, I always feel both amusement and sadness, as well as frustration and pity (to be 100% honest), when there are people claiming their obviously-not-that-good builds are the best because they did X or Y at their table that confirms their white room theorycrafting... and cry that it's unfair when the build is put to the test against something that wasn't made by their usual GMs to make their PC look good.

[Vahnavoi]

I still don't agree. GMs and players aren't adversaries. Their positions aren't opposed. A GM is presenting and adjudicating the conflict required for the game to be a game. The players aren't trying to beat the GM, they're trying to resolve the conflict. The GM is not trying to beat the players.*

Y'know.... hopefully.

*Because the GM just wins in that case.

The position of a game master stems from a wargaming paradigm where opposing players both describe their moves to a referee, and the referee then processes them. The common roleplaying game paradigm only folds the opposing player's role into the role of the referee, it doesn't remove it. It is pointless convolution of language to insist the game master isn't an adversary when they're playing adversarial roles.

If you want a game master who genuinely isn't adversarial, don't have the game master play those roles.

As for the point of a game master "just winning", that's a fallacious thought. Just declaring one's victory by fiat doesn't provide any gameplay. Because he is an opposing player, a game master, too, benefits from semblance of parity. It's what provides them with a challenge and something to do. For contrast, we could talk about setting up a chessboard instead. A player can set up a board blatantly in their own favor, the only limit to that is finding a second willing player. But most of those solutions are trivial, they can't sustain long-term play. Beating people up in rigged matches isn't infinitely entertaining.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh no. He is actually a pookha and never gives straight answers anyway. (Pookha are prohibited from ever telling the truth.) Gee, just like Kenku in D&D 5e, this character class/race is set up for grief play, when the core means of playing a TRGPG is verbal/oral communication. This is designed as an explicit obstacle to play.
Or you just have a grief player.

I've come to think that a lot of the D&D-type TTRPG & CRPG scene instills a sort of... I'd call it "transactional violence interaction equality" between PCs and NPCs. That is: PCs and real opponent NPCs (not mooks & chaff) are given abilities to annihilate each other and are expected to use them as often as possible. Maybe at your tables.

You know some ****ed up kids then.
My experiences from about grade 5 to about grade 10 supports Vahnavoi's point nicely. So does the savage bullying on-line that my wife's niece received a decade or so ago. Her mother eventually took her phone away as part of the therapy to get her to go back to school again.
Did you catch that?
The on-line facebook/text bullying was so nasty that she would get dropped off at school. Until the Vice Principle about a week into this, wondering where this student was and no doctor's note for absences, my sister- in-law was not aware that her daughter would enter the front foyer, watch her mother drive off, and then walk away from the school each day and spend most of the day somewhere else. (Her antagoninsts were no better in person, as it turned out).

Kids are mean.

Pay attention to specific arguments made: you being likeliest to meet a behaviour in a group, isn't the same as majority of a group engaging in it at any given moment. Even with a phase every person goes through, it won't occur in everyone at the same time nor be relevant for all of their lives.
It still stands that if somebody's babbling about how they'll kill everybody over a minor slight, that's more likely to be (say) a 7-year-old having a fit who hasn't yet learned to emotionally regulate, versus a functional adult. (Etc.) And it isn't rare. Especially not in context of games. I have seen similar.

*Because the GM just wins in that case.
No. That isn't the case. I said the DM/GM has to play the roles of adversaries, not that the GM/DM is their adversary. Words matter.
The GM/DM also plays the helpful old granny who makes them pie. The GM/DM also plays the role of quest giver, and the role of city officials who are neutral ...
Beyond that, Vahnavoi covered the problem with your incorrect statement.

[Unoriginal]

I've GMed for groups of kids several times for different events. Youngest one was around 6, I think.

Out of them, there were some kids who felt entitled to just "win" whatever they did, and in that category there's only two kids who thought "saying/doing stuff we think is shocking is fun", with only one that pushed that into disruptive behavior.

Just an anecdote, though. It's probable that most disruption-prone kids weren't interested in "discover TTRPGs" events, especially 10+ years ago.

[Talakeal]

I feel like GMing is always like walking a tightrope. I want the player's to have fun, and if they aren't winning, they aren't having fun. So I want them to succeed. So I need to help them.

But... if I help them too much, the game slows down to a crawl and I get called out for railroading.

On the other hand... if I don't help them enough, they throw tantrums and I get called out for being a killer GM.

Its really hard sometimes.

Like, in previous threads I have been told that I always need to place dead adventurers outside of monster lairs to telegraph what sort of threats will be present within. But, then in this thread, having multiple NPCs ask direct questions trying to get the PCs to share the clues they need to share, it gets perceived as trying to force an outcome.


Talakeal, that's the point of OOC conversations, to facilitate communication. It isn't metagaming, it isn't cheating, it's using the tool as intended, for what it's designed to do.

Also, all the Fey asking the same question (or variants thereon) was much more metagamey and immersion-breaking than asking an OOC question ever could be.

There is a fine line between facilitating communication and railroading / playing their characters for them.

I don't know, like, it just feels better to use in character dialogue or in world clues than just breaking character.

Like, if the players are missing a hidden door, I feel like its a lot more appropriate to say something like "You notice scratches on the floor like the book shelf has been moved repeatedly" than to say "Guys, there is a hidden door behind the book shelf. If you want to find the treasure, you need to find it!".

Or maybe that is just me?


OK, you've got your answer. /thread?

Also, no need for you to be surprised about it, when it's this obvious that anything where a direct answer is required just isn't going to happen in this game. /game?

It explains why they won't offer the fey anything for their assistance and insist they have nothing to give, but simply answering a request to share information isn't going to taken as a promise even with the trickiest of fey (unless I suppose the players decide to add unnecessary figures of speech like "I'll eat my hat if this information isn't correct!" or "I know this is true, I stake my life on it!").


What did the players say in response to that?

Brian (who is playing the group's face because he is the only one who is really comfortable talking in character) got all depressed and melodramatic and said that he was too stupid for RPGs and needed to find a new hobby. Then the new girl tried to gaslight me into believing that the scene interrogating the werewolf for information didn't happen until after the meeting with the Sidhe and therefore I was asking them for information they didn't have.

But at that point it was late and everyone was already tired and frustrated, so I dropped the matter.


Another consideration. After the first 2 interactions, you realise they're going no where. Ask them to roll social skills. If it's a fail tell them "Your approach is unsuccessful, unless you want to try something significantly different, we'll close the scene there"
They still don't have the help you wanted them to, but with only a couple of conversations and a roll, there's less game time invested in something which might look like a waste of time.

Though how much of this you can apply to your game is hard for me to know

I have done that in the past, typically it results in the players doing nothing. I don't know, like I have said before, they tend to get tunnel vision and if their first approach doesn't work, they get frustrated, give up, and withdraw from the game. To quote Papa Flanders, "I've tried nothing, and I am all out of ideas!".

So, in this case, I hoped that I could get an NPC to lead them to a different approach by asking direct questions. It didn't work, but it was a hope. Even though, I don't consider the evening wasted as they still made a bunch of contacts, learned about fairy society, and spent time RPing with colorful characters. But from a "goal-oriented" perspective I suppose it was.


Both you and your players repeatedly use "optimal" in the same way as the junior engineer in the joke about spherical cows in a vacuum.

As in:

"I have found the solution, provided we ignore all factors that would prevent my solution from working."

Ok. So what term would you use for "Going with the strategy that will solve the scenario with a maximized reward to risk ratio?"

If the players have perfect knowledge, you have, imo, reduced the game to a math problem, and like all math problems, one can figure out a solution.


For example, imagine how you would plan your route when going for a speed-run or a completionist run in a video game.

Or, for example, if you know that there is a troll-bane sword on level 4 of the dungeon, and you know there is a troll lair behind the door on level 2, you would probably wait to open that door until you had the sword, whereas someone who was entering the dungeon blind would probably explore level two before going down to level 4.

[Vyke]

No. That isn't the case. I said the DM/GM has to play the roles of adversaries, not that the GM/DM is their adversary. Words matter.
The GM/DM also plays the helpful old granny who makes them pie. The GM/DM also plays the role of quest giver, and the role of city officials who are neutral ...
Beyond that, Vahnavoi covered the problem with your incorrect statement.

I'd have appreciated going without the condescension at the end there, but it's the internet I guess.

I will point out, however, that actually you said in relation to the GM being an adversary:


It's a matter of degree, but this will be present since the DM / GM has to role play the adversaries.

I disagree that there is ever adversarial relationship between the GM and the players (at least, there shouldn't be). This is because I think that the GM plays the role of the characters adversaries but is not the players' adversary. I think the difference is important because, as you say, words matter. And from your post it seems you think the same as me yet think I am incorrect (which I find somewhat confusing). Vahnavoi on the other hand thinks the distinction is a:


pointless convolution of language to insist the game master isn't an adversary when they're playing adversarial roles.

I disagree. An adversary is defined as a person, group or force that one contends with, opposes or resists. That's what it means and the definitions matter as discussed above. The relationship between the GM and players and the rules elements run by the GM and the characters are very different and I feel very sorry for the players of GM's who can't see that.

However if the relationship between a GM and the players IS adversarial then the GM will win. Because they can change the rules elements and make the adjudication as they see fit. They can probably do it only once and it will be no fun for anyone, but they can "win". Because the GM dictates the "win condition", the rules allowed and the interpretation of those rules. That fact, specifically is why it so important to specify that GM/ player dynamics are different to rules element/ character dynamics. As a player you have to be able to trust that the GM has your fun at heart, even if they are doing things detrimental to your character. That trust is important precisely BECAUSE it can be abused so absolutely.

Additionally Vahnavoi, I am perfectly aware that roleplay originated from wargaming. This is not my first day :) . However those games have changed and the roles involved have changed as well. As I read my copy of Keep on the Borderlands I can see multiple times that the GM is instructed to "give the players a reasonable chance of success". This isn't adversarial and Keep was published in, what, 1980? If that gets that you're not just out to annihilate the characters without fair chance (Owlbear notwithstanding), then 44 years on, I think we can move past "It came from wargames and wargames were strictly adversarial, the only difference is now the referee is adversarial as well".

It seems obvious to me, but, I guess... I dunno... I've managed to play the monsters that have attacked my friend's characters, I've designed the traps that threatened the characters, adjudicated the random events that plagued the characters without ever being the players' enemy. Their characters probably wouldn't think highly of me but I don't sit around a table with them, just my friends.... and they keep coming back for games I run. So maybe I'll carry on doing what I do...

[Vahnavoi]

Ok. So what term would you use for "Going with the strategy that will solve the scenario with a maximized reward to risk ratio?"

You don't seem to understand my criticism. Vast majority of time, when you or your players call a strategy "optimal", it is NOT a strategy with maximized reward to risk ratio in any actual scenario under discussion. It is a strategy with maximized reward to risk ratio in a vacuum, with spherical opponents. Quite often, when you come here to complain, you yourself can point out the obvious flaw... yet then turn around and insist the players are following an "optimal" strategy. The core issue is this:


If the players have perfect knowledge, you have, imo, reduced the game to a math problem, and like all math problems, one can figure out a solution.

You have way too much faith in mathematical abilities of yourself and your players.

Chess is a perfect information game. No living human can math out the best possible strategy for a Chess game.

Checkers is a simpler perfect information game. Better yet, it is a solved game! A computer can be programmed to always play a perfect game of Checkers. Good luck trying to do the same as a human.


For example, imagine how you would plan your route when going for a speed-run or a completionist run in a video game.

Even moderately complex games can keep speedrun competition circuits going for years as hundreds of players try to figure out the best route. Completionist runs are fairly different, as they are often designed to be completeable by the average end user. Yet, genuine optimal paths for most such games are often not known at all since it doesn't take a lot for that pursuit to turn into a Travelling Salesman problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem) that'd require a computer to run an algorithm to approximate the correct result.

The efforts of you or your players going through an adventure once aren't on the same level.

You are one of many people who are unreasonably afraid of perfect information, because your hubris blinds you to the difference of an optimal path existing in theory versus you and your players being able to find it in practice. Which, in turn, leads to you and your players proclaim solutions are "optimal" when they are at best functional, and often not even that.

---



I disagree. An adversary is defined as a person, group or force that one contends with, opposes or resists.

And what exactly do you think happens then when a game master plays characters and forces that content with, oppose and resist the player characters? What exactly do you think players are doing when contending with characters and forces made to oppose and resist them?


The relationship between the GM and players and the rules elements run by the GM and the characters are very different and I feel very sorry for the players of GM's who can't see that.

Or, you have an erroneous idea of how adversarial games are run and designed. Again:


However if the relationship between a GM and the players IS adversarial then the GM will win.

This continues to be false. Again, we can replace the game master with a Chess player suggesting horribly lopsided board set-ups. The fact that they can do that doesn't mean that it is in their best interest, since any victory gained so is hollow. They get more, and more meaningful, gameplay by agreeing to a fairer match-up. "Give the (other) player(s) a reasonable chance of success" isn't an advice that's limited to non-adversarial games, to the contrary, adversarial games live by it. That's the reason why classic strategy games such as Chess strive for equal play power at the start of the game. Similarly, you seem to think trust isn't a factor in adversarial games, but it absolutely is. There is no meaning to an adversarial game without players being able to trust the other to follow rules of engagement.

You think the game master isn't an adversary, because you don't understand the reason why an adversary would self-limit to particular rules.

[Vyke]

You don't seem to understand my criticism. Vast majority of time, when you or your players call a strategy "optimal", it is NOT a strategy with maximized reward to risk ratio in any actual scenario under discussion. It is a strategy with maximized reward to risk ratio in a vacuum, with spherical opponents. Quite often, when you come here to complain, you yourself can point out the obvious flaw... yet then turn around and insist the players are following an "optimal" strategy. The core issue is this:



You have way too much faith in mathematical abilities of yourself and your players.

Chess is a perfect information game. No living human can math out the best possible strategy for a Chess game.

Checkers is a simpler perfect information game. Better yet, it is a solved game! A computer can be programmed to always play a perfect game of Checkers. Good luck trying to do the same as a human.



Even moderately complex games can keep speedrun competition circuits going for years as hundreds of players try to figure out the best route. Completionist runs are fairly different, as they are often designed to be completeable by the average end user. Yet, genuine optimal paths for most such games are often not known at all since it doesn't take a lot for that pursuit to turn into a Travelling Salesman problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem) that'd require a computer to run an algorithm to approximate the correct result.

The efforts of you or your players going through an adventure once aren't on the same level.

You are one of many people who are unreasonably afraid of perfect information, because your hubris blinds you to the difference of an optimal path existing in theory versus you and your players being able to find it in practice. Which, in turn, leads to you and your players proclaim solutions are "optimal" when they are at best functional, and often not even that.

---



And what exactly do you think happens then when a game master plays characters and forces that content with, oppose and resist the player characters? What exactly do you think players are doing when contending with characters and forces made to oppose and resist them?



Or, you have an erroneous idea of how adversarial games are run and designed. Again:



This continues to be false. Again, we can replace the game master with a Chess player suggesting horribly lopsided board set-ups. The fact that they can do that doesn't mean that it is in their best interest, since any victory gained so is hollow. They get more, and more meaningful, gameplay by agreeing to a fairer match-up. "Give the (other) player(s) a reasonable chance of success" isn't an advice that's limited to non-adversarial games, to the contrary, adversarial games live by it. That's the reason why classic strategy games such as Chess strive for equal play power at the start of the game. Similarly, you seem to think trust isn't a factor in adversarial games, but it absolutely is. There is no meaning to an adversarial game without players being able to trust the other to follow rules of engagement.

You think the game master isn't an adversary, because you don't understand the reason why an adversary would self-limit to particular rules.

You believe the way you do. I disagree. I see no point to further discussion. We have both stated our position.

[Talakeal]

You are one of many people who are unreasonably afraid of perfect information, because your hubris blinds you to the difference of an optimal path existing in theory versus you and your players being able to find it in practice. Which, in turn, leads to you and your players proclaim solutions are "optimal" when they are at best functional, and often not even that.

I am not sure if you are trying to pull a nirvana fallacy or just trying to get in a cheap insult, but either way it is silly.

We both know that if the players have perfect information, the experience of playing the game is going to be vastly different than one in which they are limited to what their character knows.
We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort.
We both know that if the players know where all the treasure hidden they are going to get more rewards than if they don't.
We both know that if the players know where all the traps are and how to bypass them, they are going to take less damage.
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze.
We both know that if the players know all of the NPC's secrets and motivations, social challenges and mysteries will be a breeze.


Now, sure, one can make a super difficult scenario that is still challenging even with perfect information, but it wouldn't play like a traditional scenario, and would have to be so difficult that any player who did try and go in blind and play it in the traditional way is almost certain to fail.


Edit: Obviously I am speaking in generalities here.

[NichG]

We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort.
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze.


These in particular are manifestly false.

[Talakeal]

These in particular are manifestly false.

Care to back that up with any evidence?

Can you give me an example of a scenario which I have a reasonable chance of winning if I go in blind but can't stomp with sufficient preparation?

I mean like, even in a tabletop war-game which is designed to be nothing but a balanced combat, one can tailor their lists and tactics to give themselves a massive advantage if they know what their opponent is playing ahead of time. Now, imagine if your opponent also has to announce all of his tactics in advance before the game began like the GM would for the NPCs in a theoretical unlimited player knowledge scenario.

[NichG]

Care to back that up with any evidence?

Can you give me an example of a scenario which I have a reasonable chance of winning if I go in blind but can't stomp with sufficient preparation?

I mean like, even in a tabletop war-game which is designed to be nothing but a balanced combat, one can tailor their lists and tactics to give themselves a massive advantage if they know what their opponent is playing ahead of time. Now, imagine if your opponent also has to announce all of his tactics in advance before the game began like the GM would for the NPCs in a theoretical unlimited player knowledge scenario.

The example was literally in the post you responded to. Go and play a chess game with a player you've never met but who is around your level. You have perfect information, the game is still challenging, you still have an even chance of winning, and furthermore your chance of winning isn't even because of random factors - its entirely about how much skill and composure you can bring into the moment.

Now go and study the games of someone you're going to play against in chess. It will give you some advantage, but it will still matter far less than your own understanding of the game.

[Talakeal]

The example was literally in the post you responded to. Go and play a chess game with a player you've never met but who is around your level. You have perfect information, the game is still challenging, you still have an even chance of winning, and furthermore your chance of winning isn't even because of random factors - its entirely about how much skill and composure you can bring into the moment.

Now go and study the games of someone you're going to play against in chess. It will give you some advantage, but it will still matter far less than your own understanding of the game.

That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

Perfect information would be if your opponent told you, in advance, what moves he was planning and how he would react to each of your moves before he made them.

[NichG]

That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

Perfect information would be if your opponent told you, in advance, what moves he was planning and how he would react to each of your moves before he made them.

I've played Go that way against players stronger than me. It's worth a few stones handicap, but it definitely doesn't mean I can trivially beat them.

[Talakeal]

I've played Go that way against players stronger than me. It's worth a few stones handicap, but it definitely doesn't mean I can trivially beat them.

I find that hard to swallow, but never having played Go I will take your word for it. Even so, we are getting off in the the weeds, as I was talking about RPG adventures, not ever game ever made, although I would still posit that the vast majority of games are trivially easy if your opponent has to tell you every move they make well in advance.

[NichG]

I find that hard to swallow, but never having played Go I will take your word for it. Even so, we are getting off in the the weeds, as I was talking about RPG adventures, not ever game ever made, although I would still posit that the vast majority of games are trivially easy if your opponent has to tell you every move they make well in advance.

Perfect information games are IMO actually more able to be truly difficult than partial information and stochastic games, because you can't hide behind gambling. Stuff with uncertainties will generally make it so that plans more than a few steps deep are just pointless to make, so you don't have to push yourself to think deeply, just have a good standard operating procedure and be good at reacting to surprises. But perfect information games can be such that someone who plans 50 steps ahead has an advantage over someone who can only plan 30 steps ahead. And really, most people in any kind of complex game, can plan maybe 2 or 3 steps ahead at most. So you have a LOT of space for skill to matter.

But even taking that aside, there are tons of computer games where players can know as much as they could want about the units, how the AI makes decisions, etc. It still takes actual work and thought to come up with counter-strategies, to the extent that all of that information is out there - even pre-chewed by more experienced players - and people can still struggle to play through the harder fights in things like BG3 or Divinity or Pathfinder: WotR or whatever.

You are assigning way too much power to unknowns, and not nearly enough power to variations in your players' ability to even comprehend what is being put directly in their face.

[Kish]

Your generalizations baffle me and make me so glad my gaming (and life!) experience is nothing like yours, Talakeal, but, I want to zero in on one thing in particular:

"We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort."

The others appear to be claims about the necessity of obfuscation, but that one's just: modules are too easy.

I disagree. I think you would discover, if you asked and didn't immediately go "I don't believe you," that "modules are too easy" is a minority opinion, not the universally-acknowledged fact you're claiming it to be. And while I'm not seeing the relevance to anything concrete that's been brought up in this thread, I do see the relevance to the underlying problem: you run games which are harder than your players want them to be, and deal with that information by digging your heels in and declaring that easier games would be objectively worse.

[Talakeal]

Your generalizations baffle me and make me so glad my gaming (and life!) experience is nothing like yours, Talakeal, but, I want to zero in on one thing in particular:

"We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort."

The others appear to be claims about the necessity of obfuscation, but that one's just: modules are too easy.

I disagree. I think you would discover, if you asked and didn't immediately go "I don't believe you," that "modules are too easy" is a minority opinion, not the universally-acknowledged fact you're claiming it to be. And while I'm not seeing the relevance to anything concrete that's been brought up in this thread, I do see the relevance to the underlying problem: you run games which are harder than your players want them to be, and deal with that information by digging your heels in and declaring that easier games would be objectively worse.

I didn't say modules are too easy.

I said that a "fair" module would become too easy if you allowed the players to have total information transparency. Hell, there are a lot of modules that I think are too *hard* because they don't give you the necessary information to solve them. For example, I played a Delta Green module where the only way to end the haunting of a house was to smash every mirror in the house with an elder sign. Now, if it was just about smashing mirrors, there are enough clues one could theoretically come to that conclusion, but there are no elder signs in the adventure. The word elder sign is never once mentioned in the text. So you actually would need to grab an elder sign from a different module, carry it with you, and then completely unprompted decide to use it to smash all the mirrors in the haunted house. That is pure madness.

But... with total transparency of information, it is pretty simple.

A lot of modules are unfair against the players and are just too damn hard, but I still think if you gave the players time to study the module before running it (and they had the inclination to do so), your average group of players is going to find it to be a cake walk.

As for "an easier game is objectively worse" well... that depends on a lot of factors. But I will say that I doubt many players would enjoy a game where the GM simply listed out the steps necessary to achieve all of their goals and I am pretty sure the vast majority of them would complain that it was a massive railroad.


Perfect information games are IMO actually more able to be truly difficult than partial information and stochastic games, because you can't hide behind gambling. Stuff with uncertainties will generally make it so that plans more than a few steps deep are just pointless to make, so you don't have to push yourself to think deeply, just have a good standard operating procedure and be good at reacting to surprises. But perfect information games can be such that someone who plans 50 steps ahead has an advantage over someone who can only plan 30 steps ahead. And really, most people in any kind of complex game, can plan maybe 2 or 3 steps ahead at most. So you have a LOT of space for skill to matter.

But even taking that aside, there are tons of computer games where players can know as much as they could want about the units, how the AI makes decisions, etc. It still takes actual work and thought to come up with counter-strategies, to the extent that all of that information is out there - even pre-chewed by more experienced players - and people can still struggle to play through the harder fights in things like BG3 or Divinity or Pathfinder: WotR or whatever.

You are assigning way too much power to unknowns, and not nearly enough power to variations in your players' ability to even comprehend what is being put directly in their face.

Again, I am talking about RPG adventures, not every game ever made.

But I actually think a game of Chess with full information would be a lot like an RPG in the fact that it would, essentially, be your opponent playing both sides and "railroading" you to victory by pointing out every mistake you are about to make before you make it.

[NichG]

Again, I am talking about RPG adventures, not every game ever made.

Talakeal, the games I listed *are* RPGs!

They're cRPGs, because the sort of literal perfect information you're talking about is objectively possible for those, whereas for anything at a table it'd be 'well maybe the GM didn't tell you everything' or whatever and we could argue in circles forever. But those games are based off of tabletop RPG rulesets, the combats run more or less like tabletop combats can run (certainly not like theatre of the mind groups, or groups with heavy improvised actions, but RAW and minis groups its basically the same stuff).


But I actually think a game of Chess with full information would be a lot like an RPG in the fact that it would, essentially, be your opponent playing both sides and "railroading" you to victory by pointing out every mistake you are about to make before you make it.

Your opponent is only going to be able to tell you about the moves they see, and generally speaking in chess you aren't going to make a move if you see an obvious response to it. So the natural consequence of both players sharing total information about their thought process with each-other is that the game is decided by the consequences that neither player initially notices, but which become relevant later after the player who is helped or harmed by it has already committed. You can play by e.g. always just doing what your opponent tells you they would do in your situation, but at best you're going to tie and probably you're going to lose more than half the time if you do that because the opponent is taking moves where they wouldn't be thrilled to play any of the available responses.

Like, take Stockfish or AlphaGo or whatever, and say you have full access to that software and hardware to independently run it. You can see its 'thought process', all the branches of moves it considers, its relative probability of choosing each move, even ask it to play out theoretical continuations, and use all of that information in deciding what move you want to make. You're in timed games - say 3 hours per game, not too strict but enough you can't just take forever. I will bet that you still wouldn't be able to win more than 70% of the time in a 20 game series. If the computer always gets to go first, then unless you're a professional player I don't think you'll win even 1 game, even with access to the entire thought process and the ability so simulate the opponent and all of that.

If you just play the computer's moves against itself, you'll get something like a coin flip each time, but its like rock paper scissors - if you actually want to win on average, you have to abandon random play and actually try to deviate from the computer move.

[gbaji]

I want to communicate. But I want to do it without meta-gaming.

...

It was a multi hour scene. I can't possibly remember everything that was said. Over the course of the evening, they talked to half a dozen or so different NPCs, all of whom asked some variant of "What are the fomorians planning?" although exactly how the question was phrased varied from individual to individual.

You either need to drop into OOC communication and (as the GM) ask the players "Do you intend to tell the Seelie about the planned attack in the woods?", or if you really really really want/need to avoid that (which I don't consider metagaming at all, but whatever), then you need to have a "helper NPC" do the work for you. Have some NPC offer to assist the PCs with their interaction with the various factions/folks there. Have that NPC tell them "So. I talked to <factionA> and have discovered that they seem to have a significant interest in the Muir Woods. Perhaps if you have some information which may assist their operations there, they may be willing to assist you in turn". Basically hint the heck out of things to them. And honestly? If hinting fails, then just outright remind them (as the GM) that they know about this planned attack on the woods, and that information might just get them to help, where the mere presence of these werewolves in a tenement building will not.


The PCs were fairly forthcoming about what help they wanted; they wanted the Sidhe to storm their building and kill the werewolves. They were told multiple times that the fey are not going to risk their lives and open war with the werewolves without a very good reason, and then asked exactly what the fomorians were up to, to which the PCs just gave evasive non-committal answers.

I'll ask again: Did you straight up ask them (as the GM): "Do you tell them about the planned attack on the woods?". If you didn't do this, then you do not know if they withheld that information because they chose to withhold it, or they just plain didn't remember it, or didn't think it was relevant. There's a progresssion here. You give the players time to come up with stuff on their own. Then you use the NPC dialogue to hint at what they could do. Then be even more direct with the NPCs. But yeah, at some point, when it becomes clear that the PCs are not using some key piece of inforamtion, you as the GM need to drop out of character and just ask them directly. Otherewise, you'll never know if this is by intention, or accident.

Avoiding this out of a desire to "not metagame" is not a good approach IMO. You're going to have a lot more OOC conversations (mostly angry ones) as a result of not doing this sort of thing when it's appropriate to do so.



The fey didn't even know there was going to be an attack.

They made it clear that before they could help, they would need a good reason, and then directly asked what the formorians were planning.

The players then described the issue is "There will be more Fomorians in the city, and since we all know fomorians are evil, that isn't good!" without ever mentioning any sort of direct threat or plan posed by the fomori.

You've repeated the same sequence multiple times. But I still don't have the answer to the question: Did the players intentionally avoid telling the NPCs about the planned attack on the woods, or did they forget (or not know? Or not realize it was signficiant? etc). You will only ever know this if you ask them. And there is no harm in asking. If the players are supposed to already know about the attack, then asking them "do you tell them about the attack" provides zero additional information to the players. But if they've forgotten about it, then this will jog their memory and will help "unstick" the game.



The previous scene they had captured and interrogated one of the werewolves and learned what they were planning. They absolutely had this information, and it was absolutely fresh in their minds.

Now, whether or not they realized the important of what they learned, or had already forgotten it by the next scene, who can say?

Then ask! Seriously. At the point where it's clear that they should know this, should think to provide that to the Seelie to get their help, but aren't doing it, that's when you ask the question.

Continuing to ask (as the NPCs) "what are the formians planning" over and over, despite the PCs never giving the "right answer", is like the GM asking "are you sure you want to do that?" (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/8406/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-are-you-sure-you-want-to-do-that) when the player says their character will do something the GM knows is a bad idea. Ask the correct/direct question.



So rather than just saying 'aha, I believe I understand, now I feel smart' and continuing to do the same thing, you actually try to elicit the information you're missing. And while I agree that 'asking the players explicitly' is the absolute first thing to do as you wrote, Talakeal did say they did that and got a non-answer. So to really figure out what's going on, you need to act differently and see if anything changes.

I agree that you need to test your hypothesis to see what is actually causing the interaction sequence to go the way it is going. And while Talakeal did say they "asked the players explicitly" and got a non-answer, I don't agree that what he asked was explicit enough.

If you want to test the hypothesis "do the players know/remember that the formians are going to attack the woods", you need to ask them a question that answers that. Asking "what are the formians planning" does not answer that, because the PCs could know the information but be intentionally withholding it from the other NPCs *or* they could not know/remember it in the first place, and that question doesn't allow us to determine which is the case.

The question/test must include the phrase "formians attacking the woods" at the very least to be "explicit". What Talakeal actually asked meets the definition of "vague" (I'd also argue that he was being cagey as well, but that's just me).



Where do you draw the line between "helping" and "railroading" though?

If the GM is always willing to break character to show the players the "optimal" path, that really sounds like a bad railroad to me.

Your scenario is already a railroad. You've just turned off the lights and forced the players to stumble around in the dark looking for the railcar before they can get on it and proceed down the tracks.

Your own statements have said that the only way the PCs can deal with the werewolves and formians (and whatever other factions are causing them problems) is to get help from the Seelie, and an aliance of factions to help at that. You've also clearly established that the mere actions of the bad guys in the tenement where the PCs are working/living/whatever (details missing? Whatever) isn't enough to make this happen, but the planned attack by the same evil guys on some other faction's operations in the woods will. You have facilitated this by having the PCs capture and interrogate a werewolf and provide them with the information that the evil plot in the tenement is a lead up and preparation for an attack on those very woods.

They must question the werewolf to get this information. They must then pass that information on to the correct faction/whomever among the Seelie to get assistance. This may be a minor bit of railroading (most adventures will have similar types of things in them), but it's still technically a bit of rail track laid out there. If you want the adventure to progress (or at least the part where the PCs save the folks in the tenement), then you must make sure they get through those two steps. Or not. Up to you. But clearly you seemed to have hinged a fair bit of the adventure on them doing that, to the point where them failing to do so "baffled" you, and them not getting the help they expected "frustrated" them.

Yes. Railroads are bad. But guess what? You're going to sometimes have short bits of rail like this in any adventure. Where they are there, you must make sure the PCs pass to the other side. Ironically, if you do this quickly and seemlessly the players will never think of this as a railroad but just "something that happened". The more you hem and haw and insist on them "figuring it out", the more pissed they're going to be that you put this bottleneck in the adventure and then made them play 20 questions to get through it. Which seems to be what you were stuck on.

You put the track in the scenario. Having done that, you need to make sure they hop on the car and get to the other side. The alternative is to not hinge the Seelie help on that one bit of information in the first place. But you don't seem to have thought of or provided for any alternative means to get to the stage of "defeat the bad guys in the tenement building". So it's "railroad or failure".


As is, the game is going in a different direction that I anticipated, with the players making deals with the fairy underworld to perform acts of goblin-sponsored terrorism, which, while maybe not as happy as a unified crusade to crush evil, is certainly an interesting and unexpected direction for the campaign to go!

And if that's ok with you, then congrats! You have avoided railroading your players. It doesn't seem like that's the happy or desired direction either your or your players wanted to get though.

I think the issue here is that you "anticipated a specific direction", but provided one and only one way for that to happen, then failed to provide sufficient clues or hints to the players for them to figure out how to thread that needle. And yeah, this is going to result in odd and random outcomes occuring. If you're fine with that, then that's great. But if that's not what you want to happen, then the solution is to be much much much more flexible in terms of either different routes to achieving the desired scenario outcome *or* different sets of clues/information to find the one route that will lead to that desired scenario outcome.


Unless you have players who are intentionally failing and making sub-optimal decisions for the sake of drama of course, but as I said above, that is really less of an RPG and more of a collaborative storytelling game.

Nah. My guess is that your players had no clue what they were expected to do there, and you didn't provide them sufficient clues/hints. I get that you *think* you did. But my guess is that if you were to actually ask your players "why didn't you tell them about the planned attack on the woods", the answers would be a mix of "what attack on the woods" and "I didn't think they'd care about the woods, if they didn't seem to care about the city and the tenement building".

I could certainly be wrong. But I doubt it. As you just said, players generally don't intentionally tank their own objectives in a scenario just for drama or fun or randomness or whatever. If they actually wanted to get help with the werewolves and actually knew that telling the Seelie folks about the planned attack on the woods would get them that help, then they would have told them that. So yeah... we kinda have to assume that there's at least one step in that logic chain that they were missing. You clearly thought that they would think to tell them about the attack on the woods. They didn't. Dismissing that as "they were being cagey" is not a terribly useful conclusion IMO.


And what exactly do you think happens then when a game master plays characters and forces that content with, oppose and resist the player characters? What exactly do you think players are doing when contending with characters and forces made to oppose and resist them?

They are "playing the characters". I think you are maybe not getting the difference between a player and a character?

In a TTRPG the GM "plays the NPCs" and the players "play the PCs". The NPCs may be adversaries of the PCs, but that does not mean that the GM is the adversary of the players. The GM is (sometimes) roleplaying the adversaries of the characters the players are roleplaying. That's not remotely the same as the GM actually being adversarial to the players (or their characters, for that matter).



This continues to be false. Again, we can replace the game master with a Chess player suggesting horribly lopsided board set-ups. The fact that they can do that doesn't mean that it is in their best interest, since any victory gained so is hollow. They get more, and more meaningful, gameplay by agreeing to a fairer match-up. "Give the (other) player(s) a reasonable chance of success" isn't an advice that's limited to non-adversarial games, to the contrary, adversarial games live by it. That's the reason why classic strategy games such as Chess strive for equal play power at the start of the game. Similarly, you seem to think trust isn't a factor in adversarial games, but it absolutely is. There is no meaning to an adversarial game without players being able to trust the other to follow rules of engagement.

You think the game master isn't an adversary, because you don't understand the reason why an adversary would self-limit to particular rules.

Right. But those are not elements of "being an adversary". Those are cases in which you are putting some other factor ahead of being adversarial. The master chess player is setting aside his own desire to win, or order to teach a less skilled player. The chess master is not acting as an adversary when doing that. He's acting as a teacher. If his entire objective was to win, he would not do that at all. He'd play to his best advantage, using whatever he had available, so as to maximize his ability to defeat his opponent.

I think you are blending multiple concepts here and trying to port them into one where it doesn't fit. One can (arguably should) balance their adversarial nature with a generous nature or "fairness" even. But that does not makes those other things components of being an adversary. Those are things you choose to do in spite of being an adversary.

And no. Being a GM in a RPG is *not* an adversarial role. Not even close. I suspect we're running into a terminology issue here though.


That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

Perfect information would be if your opponent told you, in advance, what moves he was planning and how he would react to each of your moves before he made them.

But then your example wasn't "perfect information" either. You spoke of monster stats, location, and weaknesses and said that this would make combat a breeze. But, that's information that's alagous to knowing the board layout, the positions of each piece, and the moves each piece can perform in chess. That does not tell us what the opposing player is going to do with their pieces though, in the same way the PCs don't know what tactics and moves the monster (with otherwise known stats) is going to do either.

So to whatever degree the "known chess board and rules" is not perfect information, then neither is "known monster, stats, location, and weaknesses". Label it as you wish, but those are similar in terms of "what is known to be" versus "what is known to happen with the things that are known to be". Choice is always a factor here.

And sure. We could argue that the options available in a chess match are more variable than those on a RPG battlemat. But not that much. I'm pretty sure I could take two identical sets of monsters and run them in radically different ways (even just in a straight up combat) and the resulting difficulty for the PCs will also be significantly different as well.


And... heck. I've lost track of what this particular tangent bit was about. I think the broad point was that you need not be afraid of giving players more information in the game, out of fear that this will somehow result in a "single optimal solution" (and perhaps make them feel railroaded). As long as the players get to decide what to do about the infomation they are given, this should never be a problem. The "one optimal solution" is rarely so obvious, or single, or optimal as you may think.

[Kish]

The "one optimal solution" is rarely so obvious, or single, or optimal as you may think.
That is, unless the GM is actually planning only one solution. It's appropriate to plan for "if they do A X will happen. If they do B Y will happen. If they do C Z will happen." Much less appropriate to plan for, "After they solve this problem by doing A..."

[Telok]

Implying it? I'm outright stating it. Statistically it has to hold true for some fraction of players. Some of those three-year-olds grow up to fifteen-year-olds and then forty-year-olds who still pull wings off flies for fun. Some

Well if you're intentionally being insulting then there's no point reading your posts is there?


Back on topic: I think maybe some of it could be driven by many major game systems & adventures priming players to expect ever escalating levels of opposition, combined with increasing feelings of loss adversion. Not saying that's what happened to Tak most recently, but more generally as a trend. The 800 lb. D&D gorilla runs normally from punching gobbo & village saving to punching demigods & world/universe saving. Along the way characters go from cheap junk gear to having more wearable wealth than many D&D setting nations are worth. Which is fine in a "continually raise the combat stakes & combat power level" game style, but less so in practically every other style. And it feels like many players absorb that paradigm then apply it to everything in every other game. Resulting in having NPCs get treated as combat encounter monsters that are just around to get squished, except when they aren't and the players... I dunno, not sure that was making much sense.

[Batcathat]

As for "an easier game is objectively worse" well... that depends on a lot of factors. But I will say that I doubt many players would enjoy a game where the GM simply listed out the steps necessary to achieve all of their goals and I am pretty sure the vast majority of them would complain that it was a massive railroad.

While I agree that being told exactly what was necessary to complete the adventure would be pretty boring, I don't think it's railroading how most people understand the term.

If the players have do do exactly X to succeed, then it's pretty railroady regardless of whether the GM tells them this or not. If they can do X, Y, Z, Å, Ä or Ö to succeed, then it's not very railroady whether the GM tells them this or not.

[GloatingSwine]

Gee, just like Kenku in D&D 5e, this character class/race is set up for grief play, when the core means of playing a TRGPG is verbal/oral communication. This is designed as an explicit obstacle to play.
Or you just have a grief player.
Maybe at your tables.


Oh it's worse than that. A Pooka has to pass a willpower test to tell the whole truth for five minutes, and if you botch the roll the storyteller gives you a lie you have to sell as hard as you can.

They can speak in partial truths or indirectly, but in general must always be trying to misdirect and instil doubt in the listener. It might be interesting to try and adapt Kyoto-ken to playing one. (Traditionally people in Kyoto speak very indirectly and very often the actual words, delivered with polite sincerity, have the exact opposite meaning to the intent, eg. "Your children are so lively" actually means "Your children are loud and annoying".)

If a Pooka wants another character to do or believe something, they're better off trying to make them doubt the truth of the opposite.

[King of Nowhere]

And what exactly do you think happens then when a game master plays characters and forces that content with, oppose and resist the player characters? What exactly do you think players are doing when contending with characters and forces made to oppose and resist them?

Or, you have an erroneous idea of how adversarial games are run and designed. Again:


You believe the way you do. I disagree. I see no point to further discussion. We have both stated our position.
this is just semantics. you both know what d&d entails, you are disagreeing on the meaning of the word "adversarial". i can see both arguments being made, because "i will make a challenge that you can defeat if you don't do anything too stupid, but within the boundaries of that challenge i will try to defeat you fairly" is a complex concept that i don't think has a specific word apply to it.




We both know that if the players have perfect information, the experience of playing the game is going to be vastly different than one in which they are limited to what their character knows. yes
We both know that if the players know where all the treasure hidden they are going to get more rewards than if they don't. yes
We both know that if the players know where all the traps are and how to bypass them, they are going to take less damage. yes
We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort. true for most modules, try tomb of horror
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze. no
We both know that if the players know all of the NPC's secrets and motivations, social challenges and mysteries will be a breeze. no


no, some of those are not the same as the others. if you are put in an enclosure with the tarrasque at level 1, you have perfect information, you die regardless. sure, it's easier to fight with perfect information on your opponent. but it's still a tactical challenge, and not one with a foregone conclusion.

That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.
But I actually think a game of Chess with full information would be a lot like an RPG in the fact that it would, essentially, be your opponent playing both sides and "railroading" you to victory by pointing out every mistake you are about to make before you make it. what's that supposed to mean? that's not what "perfect information" means. perfect information in a game of chess includes the fact that your opponent may play all possible moves. you can make predictions on the fact that your opponent will try to play good moves, but that's only a practical way to reduce calculations. knowing what your opponent is going to move and what mistakes he's going to make is nothing like perfect information; it's more akin to playing against a bot, and a very stupid one.
besides, the very fact that dice is involved limits your perfect information.
you are very prone to making those kind of absolutist statements that have no bearing on the actual reality of things. you should try to be more nuanced with your absolutistic statements.




Like, take Stockfish or AlphaGo or whatever, and say you have full access to that software and hardware to independently run it. You can see its 'thought process', all the branches of moves it considers, its relative probability of choosing each move, even ask it to play out theoretical continuations, and use all of that information in deciding what move you want to make. You're in timed games - say 3 hours per game, not too strict but enough you can't just take forever. I will bet that you still wouldn't be able to win more than 70% of the time in a 20 game series. If the computer always gets to go first, then unless you're a professional player I don't think you'll win even 1 game, even with access to the entire thought process and the ability so simulate the opponent and all of that.

weird that you know stockfish, but you don't know the current reality of how strong computers are at chess.
if you are a professional, you lose. period. if we staged a match between the world champion and a pc, the only question would be whether magnus carlssen would be able to draw one game out of a dozen. winning is completely out of the question. it doesn't matter if you know the code, you can't use it to draw any useful conclusion. the best thing you can do with it is to run the computer against itself, in which case you get 50% odds. humans can no longer make a meaningful contribution there - except perhaps recognizing some fortress configurations, we haven't managed to teach the ai to do that yet. but it's very rare that they come up.


That is, unless the GM is actually planning only one solution. It's appropriate to plan for "if they do A X will happen. If they do B Y will happen. If they do C Z will happen." Much less appropriate to plan for, "After they solve this problem by doing A..."

right, good point. if the players have perfect information, they will breeze the campaign - provided that the dm has already decided how the campaign should go, and is making them stumble to find that solution. which actually seem to be the case here.

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree that there is ever adversarial relationship between the GM and the players (at least, there shouldn't be).
And since I didn't say that there was - the role play is In Character but during "the moment" it can sometimes feel adversarial OOC depending on how immersive the scene is - you are making no point. And in my experience, that "in the moment" feel is often the result of good role play, but sometimes it can be a DM/GM leaning into the role really hard. How that is received varies from player to player.

And in the next scene the DM/GM plays another role...

Again: the GM/DM plays the role of some of the adversaries. It comes with the badge.

For Talakeal:
Yes, DM/GM can be a tightrope walk. Embrace it.

[NichG]

weird that you know stockfish, but you don't know the current reality of how strong computers are at chess.
if you are a professional, you lose. period. if we staged a match between the world champion and a pc, the only question would be whether magnus carlssen would be able to draw one game out of a dozen. winning is completely out of the question. it doesn't matter if you know the code, you can't use it to draw any useful conclusion. the best thing you can do with it is to run the computer against itself, in which case you get 50% odds. humans can no longer make a meaningful contribution there - except perhaps recognizing some fortress configurations, we haven't managed to teach the ai to do that yet. but it's very rare that they come up.


Yeah it's possible that in Chess you can't even chimera anymore. I think in Go, a professional can still chimera with AlphaGo or AlphaZero or whatever.

I'm curious, will Stockfish with 1 minute per move time settings reliably beat Stockfish with 1 second per move time settings? If so, a professional could possibly boost their Stockfish instance by identifying moves that need more or less time, since a tree search will at best be using heuristics for that.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm curious, will Stockfish with 1 minute per move time settings reliably beat Stockfish with 1 second per move time settings? If so, a professional could possibly boost their Stockfish instance by identifying moves that need more or less time, since a tree search will at best be using heuristics for that.

i'm not enough of an expert, but that may be possible.

[Quertus]

It explains why they won't offer the fey anything for their assistance and insist they have nothing to give, but simply answering a request to share information isn't going to taken as a promise even with the trickiest of fey (unless I suppose the players decide to add unnecessary figures of speech like "I'll eat my hat if this information isn't correct!" or "I know this is true, I stake my life on it!").

It explains why they would be in a mode to communicate as minimally as possible. As there is (per your OP) no reason known to them to communicate information regarding Muir Woods, they won't.

So, if you want to change this, this gives you 2 options: make it obvious to the players that necessary information is actually necessary, or remove the impediment to communication (or, better yet, replace it with a positive incentive to communication).


The others appear to be claims about the necessity of obfuscation, but that one's just: modules are too easy.

I disagree. I think you would discover, if you asked and didn't immediately go "I don't believe you," that "modules are too easy" is a minority opinion, not the universally-acknowledged fact you're claiming it to be. And while I'm not seeing the relevance to anything concrete that's been brought up in this thread, I do see the relevance to the underlying problem: you run games which are harder than your players want them to be, and deal with that information by digging your heels in and declaring that easier games would be objectively worse.

Talakeal, historically, places too much emphasis on the "Challenge" aesthetic, to the extent that he isn't having fun unless his players think his game is too hard. So it's not surprising to be able to evaluate a statement as, "modules are too easy".

[Vahnavoi]

I am not sure if you are trying to pull a nirvana fallacy or just trying to get in a cheap insult, but either way it is silly.

Or, third option, there are math problems that are too hard for you or your players to solve optimally, math problems which can be used to make a roleplaying game.


We both know that if the players have perfect information, the experience of playing the game is going to be vastly different than one in which they are limited to what their character knows.

Sure, the experience is different. "Experience is different" is not equal to "trivially soluble" nor to "players will always play optimally".


We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort.

No, we don't know that. You are suffering from a failure of imagination: you are thinking of a module that is ONLY difficult because of hidden information, and becomes trivially soluble with perfect information. You are then using that to conclude that perfect information would make any module trivial. That doesn't fly. The design space for modules, or game scenarios really, is open-ended. You said perfect information makes a game into a math problem, but forgot that math problems range from "can be understood and solved by 1st grader" to "makes professional mathematicians cry".


We both know that if the players know where all the treasure hidden they are going to get more rewards than if they don't.
We both know that if the players know where all the traps are and how to bypass them, they are going to take less damage.
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze.
We both know that if the players know all of the NPC's secrets and motivations, social challenges and mysteries will be a breeze.

These all posit a comparison between the same scenario played with and without perfect information. All of these claims fail in the same way: the answers aren't, and cannot be, actually known without specifying a scenario. They also all illustrate that you fail to understand the argument:

Taking less damage, finding more treasure, having easier fights or solving more mysteries, none of these are "optimal". "Optimal" refers to the most favorable, or the set of most favorable, strategies. A perfectly informed strategy can have all kinds of improvements over a less-informed strategy and still fail to be optimal. Because, you see, even knowing all those things, one still has to crunch the path for obtaining those treasures, meaning Travelling Salesman Problem says hello again. How much time - real time - do you actually hand your players to plot an algorithm and calculate permutations?


Now, sure, one can make a super difficult scenario that is still challenging even with perfect information, but it wouldn't play like a traditional scenario, and would have to be so difficult that any player who did try and go in blind and play it in the traditional way is almost certain to fail.

This is just baseless supposition on your part. You don't know how a hidden information versus perfect information variants of the same scenario play without analyzing specific scenarios. You also cannot say anything useful this way about scenarios made to be played with perfect information from the get-go. Sure, they might play differently... in what way exactly? Again, the design space is open-ended. Such games can be anything.

For a concrete example, you can actually go play Fog-of-war Chess and compare your experience to playing normal Chess. Does the experience differ? Yes. Are there strategies that are decent in the former but weak or pointless in the latter? Definitely. Are they so radically different that a player who enjoys one, would not be able to play and enjoy the other? No, not really.


That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

Perfect information would be if your opponent told you, in advance, what moves he was planning and how he would react to each of your moves before he made them.

Wrong.

In a deterministic perfect information game, your opponent is not a blank - you have all necessary knowledge to, in theory, calculate every possible move they could make, and every possible counter. An optimal strategy would include all that information in itself. Here is an example of how it's done for Tic-tac-toe. (https://xkcd.com/832/) You won't find one for Chess, because one cannot, in practice, be calculated.

If you need the opposing player to reveal what they are doing beforehand in a perfect information games, that's an admission that you cannot actually process all the information in the game to acquire optimal strategy.

Really, it would seem to me you don't know the difference and cannot distinguish between a game having perfect information and a gamemaster handing out a solution. I say the former, you think of the latter - with various corollaries, such as you not realizing that game master might not know the optimal solution to their own game, or that players might be able to win with sub-optimal strategies because the game master is playing sub-optimally without realizing it.

[Talakeal]

Is it any wonder that I am extra cautious about taking actions that feel like railroading to me? This entire post is written presupposing that I must be running a railroad, based on nothing I actually said.


You either need to drop into OOC communication and (as the GM) ask the players "Do you intend to tell the Seelie about the planned attack in the woods?", or if you really really really want/need to avoid that (which I don't consider metagaming at all, but whatever), then you need to have a "helper NPC" do the work for you. Have some NPC offer to assist the PCs with their interaction with the various factions/folks there. Have that NPC tell them "So. I talked to <factionA> and have discovered that they seem to have a significant interest in the Muir Woods. Perhaps if you have some information which may assist their operations there, they may be willing to assist you in turn". Basically hint the heck out of things to them. And honestly? If hinting fails, then just outright remind them (as the GM) that they know about this planned attack on the woods, and that information might just get them to help, where the mere presence of these werewolves in a tenement building will not.

What's wrong with allowing for the possibility of failure? To me, this is the social equivalent of fudging the dice so the players never lose a fight.

Also, this would require them letting the helper NPC in on their plans, which, as evasive as they were being, I just don't see happening.


I'll ask again: Did you straight up ask them (as the GM): "Do you tell them about the planned attack on the woods?". If you didn't do this, then you do not know if they withheld that information because they chose to withhold it, or they just plain didn't remember it, or didn't think it was relevant. There's a progresssion here. You give the players time to come up with stuff on their own. Then you use the NPC dialogue to hint at what they could do. Then be even more direct with the NPCs. But yeah, at some point, when it becomes clear that the PCs are not using some key piece of inforamtion, you as the GM need to drop out of character and just ask them directly. Otherewise, you'll never know if this is by intention, or accident.

Avoiding this out of a desire to "not metagame" is not a good approach IMO. You're going to have a lot more OOC conversations (mostly angry ones) as a result of not doing this sort of thing when it's appropriate to do so.

We were talking in character. I didn't need to ask "do you tell them about the attack on Muir Woods," because I know they didn't. Just like I don't need to ask you if you brought up the Jabberwocky in your post, I know you didn't because I just read it.

Now, as for asking them "why" they didn't bring it up, that is something I didn't do until the scene was over. Because asking them is RPG equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; the players will become preoccupied with that bit of data, and the organic conversation is destroyed. They will either assume "this is the right answer, the GM is trying to railroad us," or "this is a trap, the GM is trying to bait us," and in either case the other purposes of the scene; making NPC contacts, learning about Seelie society, and simply having fun RPing with colorful characters, will be forgotten and tossed by the wayside as it all boils down to the one all important question.



You've repeated the same sequence multiple times. But I still don't have the answer to the question: Did the players intentionally avoid telling the NPCs about the planned attack on the woods, or did they forget (or not know? Or not realize it was signficiant? etc). You will only ever know this if you ask them. And there is no harm in asking. If the players are supposed to already know about the attack, then asking them "do you tell them about the attack" provides zero additional information to the players. But if they've forgotten about it, then this will jog their memory and will help "unstick" the game.

The players claimed they didn't think it was significant.

They also said they were confused because they thought Caer (the Changeling word for castle) and Caern (the werewolf word for a holy place) were the same thing. Although this actually confuses me more, because if they thought the changelings were talking about the Werewolf caern, they should have been more likely to bring up the impending attack, not less.


However, it is also possible they were simply on zoned out on their phones not paying attention and forgot, and won't admit it. I have had problems with that in the past, so it is impossible to know for sure.



Continuing to ask (as the NPCs) "what are the formians planning" over and over, despite the PCs never giving the "right answer", is like the GM asking "are you sure you want to do that?" (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/8406/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-are-you-sure-you-want-to-do-that) when the player says their character will do something the GM knows is a bad idea. Ask the correct/direct question.

What are the fomorians planning *is* a direct question.

"Are you sure you want to do that?" Is just a polite way of saying "You are an idiot, don't do that."

These are not the same thing.


They must question the werewolf to get this information.

Again, this is false, and I never said this. There were a thousand ways to get the information, or to proceed with the scenario without learning the information. The idea to interrogate the werewolf was the player's, as was the method by which they extracted it.



They must then pass that information on to the correct faction/whomever among the Seelie to get assistance.

The players chose to talk the Seelie into helping them. In my opinion, the easiest way to do this was to make those tasked with defending Muir Woods aware of the impending attack. But the players could have come up with a better plan I didn't think of, or they could have made a worse plan work. Hell... if they hadn't flubbed their persuasion roll their initial plan of convincing the Seelie to attack the formorians "because they are there" could have yielded results despite it being, imo, a plan that was likely doomed to failure.



Your scenario is already a railroad. You've just turned off the lights and forced the players to stumble around in the dark looking for the railcar before they can get on it and proceed down the tracks.

Your own statements have said that the only way the PCs can deal with the werewolves and formians (and whatever other factions are causing them problems) is to get help from the Seelie, and an aliance of factions to help at that. You've also clearly established that the mere actions of the bad guys in the tenement where the PCs are working/living/whatever (details missing? Whatever) isn't enough to make this happen, but the planned attack by the same evil guys on some other faction's operations in the woods will. You have facilitated this by having the PCs capture and interrogate a werewolf and provide them with the information that the evil plot in the tenement is a lead up and preparation for an attack on those very woods.

They must question the werewolf to get this information. They must then pass that information on to the correct faction/whomever among the Seelie to get assistance. This may be a minor bit of railroading (most adventures will have similar types of things in them), but it's still technically a bit of rail track laid out there. If you want the adventure to progress (or at least the part where the PCs save the folks in the tenement), then you must make sure they get through those two steps. Or not. Up to you. But clearly you seemed to have hinged a fair bit of the adventure on them doing that, to the point where them failing to do so "baffled" you, and them not getting the help they expected "frustrated" them.

This is not true.

Again, you are presupposing a railroad based on nothing.

I didn't say "the only way the PCs can deal with the werewolves and formians (and whatever other factions are causing them problems) is to get help from the Seelie, and an aliance of factions to help at that". I said that no one faction is strong enough to beat the werewolves in combat in a fair fight (and attacking them in their lair almost garuntees the fight will be unfair in their favor).

I did not say the Seelie had to be involved. I did not say that the werewolves coundn't be beaten outside of combat. I didn't say beating the werewolves was neccesary for the scenario. Heck, I didn't think it needed to be said, but obviously it is possible for the underdog to win due to an unconventional plan or outlandish dice rolls, or a thousand other weird things, nor did I say it was impossible to enlist help from a faction that isn't currently involved.

You are assuming all of this. And assuming incorrectly.


You put the track in the scenario. Having done that, you need to make sure they hop on the car and get to the other side. The alternative is to not hinge the Seelie help on that one bit of information in the first place. But you don't seem to have thought of or provided for any alternative means to get to the stage of "defeat the bad guys in the tenement building". So it's "railroad or failure".

Again, this is just flat out wrong.

But, deeper down, this is a weird way of looking at it.

You seem to be saying that it is the GM's job to provide alternate solutions. Is that correct?

So in your opinion, a game where the GM doesn't have anything in mind and leaves it entirely up to the players to come up with a solution is *more* of a railroad than one in which the GM lays out several paths before the PCs and forces them to choose one?


The more you hem and haw and insist on them "figuring it out", the more pissed they're going to be that you put this bottleneck in the adventure and then made them play 20 questions to get through it. Which seems to be what you were stuck on.

It wasn't the PCs playing 20 questions. It was one question. And the NPC's were the ones playing the game, all the PCs had to do was answer. Likewise, the players are the ones who are "hemming and hawwing" not me. I am asking very direct clear questions, the players are the ones who are refusing to give a direct answer.


But again, on a broader level, that's interesting.

IMO, players get frustrated when they fail. But they also get frustrated if they feel the GM is leading by the nose.

So, as a compromise, I tend to give hints and second chances if they are barking up the wrong tree rather than just telling them they fail and moving on to the next scene. Are you saying this is a bad thing?

Because yeah, I guess in retrospect it does tend to backfire quite often, as it wastes time and my players often perceive it as rubbing their stupidity in their face.



I think the issue here is that you "anticipated a specific direction", but provided one and only one way for that to happen, then failed to provide sufficient clues or hints to the players for them to figure out how to thread that needle. And yeah, this is going to result in odd and random outcomes occuring. If you're fine with that, then that's great. But if that's not what you want to happen, then the solution is to be much much much more flexible in terms of either different routes to achieving the desired scenario outcome *or* different sets of clues/information to find the one route that will lead to that desired scenario outcome.


Nah. My guess is that your players had no clue what they were expected to do there, and you didn't provide them sufficient clues/hints. I get that you *think* you did. But my guess is that if you were to actually ask your players "why didn't you tell them about the planned attack on the woods", the answers would be a mix of "what attack on the woods" and "I didn't think they'd care about the woods, if they didn't seem to care about the city and the tenement building".


Again though, there was no clues and hints or puzzle solving or mysteries or specific directions here.

In the previous scene, they had asked the werewolf "What is your plan?" and she told them "We are going to create an army of fomorians, use them to attack the werewolves in Muir woods, and then release the Cataclysm."

In this scene, the players were asked by about half a dozen different Seelie "What are the werewolves planning?".

This could not be any more straightforward. All that is required is that when they are asked a direct question, they mindlessly regurgitate the information that was given to them when they asked the exact same question in the previous scene.


If the players have do do exactly X to succeed, then it's pretty railroady regardless of whether the GM tells them this or not. If they can do X, Y, Z, Å, Ä or Ö to succeed, then it's not very railroady whether the GM tells them this or not.

But if one path is easier, why would the players not take it? Why would they deliberately choose a sub-optimal path?

For example, if I tell them where the switch to disable the trap is, why would the players attempt a risky or potentially failure prone way to bypass or disarm it even if it is possible?
If I tell the players there are trolls in room 3a and a troll-bane sword in room 4c, why would they ever try and defeat the trolls without grabbing the sword first?
If you tell them there is a treasure hidden behind the bookshelf, why would the players ever avoid picking it up?

Or, in my specific case, why would they ever decide to go ask random fairy knights to go on a crusade or unseelie goblins to blow up a building when they know there is a fey baron whose job it is to defend muir woods?


no, some of those are not the same as the others. if you are put in an enclosure with the tarrasque at level 1, you have perfect information, you die regardless. sure, it's easier to fight with perfect information on your opponent.

Hence the next paragraph where I said it is possible to make a scenario so difficult that perfect information may not help, but such a scenario would be grossly unfair if someone went in blind. I think level 1 trapped with a tarrasque certainly counts!


but it's still a tactical challenge, and not one with a foregone conclusion.

If the fight is still a challenge after being told everything about the encounter and being told what the optimal tactics are as the GM sees them, then I would argue that it wouldn't be a fair challenge going in blind. And, in such a case, the optimal tactics are probably to avoid the encounter entirely!


what's that supposed to mean? that's not what "perfect information" means. perfect information in a game of chess includes the fact that your opponent may play all possible moves. you can make predictions on the fact that your opponent will try to play good moves, but that's only a practical way to reduce calculations. knowing what your opponent is going to move and what mistakes he's going to make is nothing like perfect information; it's more akin to playing against a bot, and a very stupid one.

Remember, the original suggestion was that I tell the players what they need to say to the NPCs to get the NPCs to do what they want them to do.

Saying "your opponent may play all possible moves" is not equivalent.


besides, the very fact that dice is involved limits your perfect information.

Yep. Hence the caveat about bad lack in my post.

Of course, most problems have solutions that don't involve dice rolls at all, hence the old school idiom "if you are rolling the dice, you have already failed."


you are very prone to making those kind of absolutist statements that have no bearing on the actual reality of things. you should try to be more nuanced with your absolutistic statements.

I am responding to an absurd statement with an absurd statement, yes.

Let me restate my point more simply without examples or hyperbole:

Some approaches to problems are vastly more efficient than other approaches. If the GM simply tells the players which approach is most efficient, the players would be fools not to take that approach, rendering all other approaches moot. To me, this is railroading, as you are effectively taking all other approaches off the table.

Vahnovoi then objected to me using the term "optimal" because, afaict, players and GM's aren't smart enough to know which path is literally the best possible path out of all permutations.


Talakeal, the games I listed *are* RPGs!

They're cRPGs, because the sort of literal perfect information you're talking about is objectively possible for those, whereas for anything at a table it'd be 'well maybe the GM didn't tell you everything' or whatever and we could argue in circles forever. But those games are based off of tabletop RPG rulesets, the combats run more or less like tabletop combats can run (certainly not like theatre of the mind groups, or groups with heavy improvised actions, but RAW and minis groups its basically the same stuff).


cRPGs are vastly different from tabletop RPGs.

First of all, they can't account for out of the box thinking. You can never kidnap the bosses family for leverage, or borrow a magic item from a friend in a neighboring kingdom, or tunnel directly into the treasure room bypassing the rest of the dungeon, or any of the countless other things you could do in a traditional RPG module with perfect information.

Second, they aren't fair fights to begin with. Tabletop RPG modules are written with the expectation of a fair challenge going in blind. RPGs aren't, because you are expected to play them over and over again until you get them right. Hardcore mode with considered to be a challenge for advanced players, not the expectation for noobies!

Third, most computer RPGs have a large degree of manual dexterity involved, which bypasses a lot of the knowledge requirements.

That being said, although I am sure there are some out there, I have yet to play a computer RPG that I can't utterly trivialize after multiple playthroughs.



Your opponent is only going to be able to tell you about the moves they see, and generally speaking in chess you aren't going to make a move if you see an obvious response to it. So the natural consequence of both players sharing total information about their thought process with each-other is that the game is decided by the consequences that neither player initially notices, but which become relevant later after the player who is helped or harmed by it has already committed. You can play by e.g. always just doing what your opponent tells you they would do in your situation, but at best you're going to tie and probably you're going to lose more than half the time if you do that because the opponent is taking moves where they wouldn't be thrilled to play any of the available responses.


Woah, hold on. Perfect information only goes one way. It is impossible to have a game where both sides have perfect information. Best case scenario, attempting it ends up with a Princess Bride style"I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know...." loop and nobody ever actually makes a move.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

They also said they were confused because they thought Caer (the Changeling word for castle) and Caern (the werewolf word for a holy place) were the same thing. Although this actually confuses me more, because if they thought the changelings were talking about the Werewolf caern, they should have been more likely to bring up the impending attack, not less.


However, it is also possible they were simply on zoned out on their phones not paying attention and forgot, and won't admit it. I have had problems with that in the past, so it is impossible to know for sure.

I think if this was an issue at my table I'd probably think about radically simplifying and not including cant and language in ways that can cause confusion. When I've seen games devolve into people staring at their phones it's often because something is happening deep in the weeds that someone (or multiple someones) just doesn't care about.


Again though, there was no clues and hints or puzzle solving or mysteries or specific directions here.

In the previous scene, they had asked the werewolf "What is your plan?" and she told them "We are going to create an army of fomorians, use them to attack the werewolves in Muir woods, and then release the Cataclysm."

In this scene, the players were asked by about half a dozen different Seelie "What are the werewolves planning?".

This could not be any more straightforward. All that is required is that when they are asked a direct question, they mindlessly regurgitate the information that was given to them when they asked the exact same question in the previous scene.

So... in character, have you given them a reason to not trust the seelie as a group? Out of character, have they been taught that the GM's running of the world isn't trustworthy? Because clearly there's something incentivizing this behavior.

[Batcathat]

But if one path is easier, why would the players not take it? Why would they deliberately choose a sub-optimal path?

For example, if I tell them where the switch to disable the trap is, why would the players attempt a risky or potentially failure prone way to bypass or disarm it even if it is possible?
If I tell the players there are trolls in room 3a and a troll-bane sword in room 4c, why would they ever try and defeat the trolls without grabbing the sword first?
If you tell them there is a treasure hidden behind the bookshelf, why would the players ever avoid picking it up?

Sure, in very specific situations there may be an optimal choice, but in many situations there isn't. Let's say that the party needs to enter the castle of their enemy. They could fight the guards, trick the guards, sneak past the guards and probably a dozen other options, depending on the specifics, and frequently none of them is the obviously easiest path and it comes down to player style, party makeup or whatever (and in my experience, that can even make players knowingly choose a sub-optimal path. If player A likes sneaking and player B likes fighting, they're pretty likely to argue in favor of sneaking and fighting respectively even if neither is the easiest path for the situation at hand).

In any case, my point is that if there is only one option then it's a railroad whether the players know it or not and if there are fifteen different options (of roughly equal value, so not fourteen detours and one correct path), then it's not a railroad even if the players know their options.

[Talakeal]

Or, third option, there are math problems that are too hard for you or your players to solve optimally, math problems which can be used to make a roleplaying game.

You seem to be stuck on the literal definition of the word optimization. Optimization cannot exist in reality. Much like "perfection" or "infinite" it is a concept, not something that actually exists. That doesn't mean that people don't use it all the time in day to day speech. Hell, there are entire RPG boards dedicated to "optimization". Wouldn't your time be better spent arguing with them than with me?

But again, this is a purely semantic argument. If you prefer, substitute "the path which they perceive to have the highest ratio of reward to risk" rather than "optimal path".


might not know[/I] the optimal solution to their own game, or that players might be able to win with sub-optimal strategies because the game master is playing sub-optimally without realizing it.

Ok then, why bring it up if it is clearly unrelated to the topic at hand?

The suggestion was that I tell them what the NPCs do and do not know and what information will get them to react in the way the players want them to.

Would it have been appropriate for me to respond "Well, the players already understand the rules of Changeling, therefore they already have perfect information about the scenario and could not possibly benefit from more information!".



No, we don't know that. You are suffering from a failure of imagination: you are thinking of a module that is ONLY difficult because of hidden information, and becomes trivially soluble with perfect information. You are then using that to conclude that perfect information would make any module trivial. That doesn't fly. The design space for modules, or game scenarios really, is open-ended. You said perfect information makes a game into a math problem, but forgot that math problems range from "can be understood and solved by 1st grader" to "makes professional mathematicians cry".



These all posit a comparison between the same scenario played with and without perfect information. All of these claims fail in the same way: the answers aren't, and cannot be, actually known without specifying a scenario. They also all illustrate that you fail to understand the argument:

Taking less damage, finding more treasure, having easier fights or solving more mysteries, none of these are "optimal". "Optimal" refers to the most favorable, or the set of most favorable, strategies. A perfectly informed strategy can have all kinds of improvements over a less-informed strategy and still fail to be optimal. Because, you see, even knowing all those things, one still has to crunch the path for obtaining those treasures, meaning Travelling Salesman Problem says hello again. How much time - real time - do you actually hand your players to plot an algorithm and calculate permutations?



This is just baseless supposition on your part. You don't know how a hidden information versus perfect information variants of the same scenario play without analyzing specific scenarios. You also cannot say anything useful this way about scenarios made to be played with perfect information from the get-go. Sure, they might play differently... in what way exactly? Again, the design space is open-ended. Such games can be anything.

For a concrete example, you can actually go play Fog-of-war Chess and compare your experience to playing normal Chess. Does the experience differ? Yes. Are there strategies that are decent in the former but weak or pointless in the latter? Definitely. Are they so radically different that a player who enjoys one, would not be able to play and enjoy the other? No, not really.


Yes, of course you can come up with some hypothetical game / scenario where all of the normal assumptions don't apply. I admitted as much in the post you are responding to.

Who cares? What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Why bring up increasingly inane hypotheticals that have nothing to do with RPGs that actually exist?

Heck, you accuse me of spherical cows, but at this point you're argument hinges on non-Euclidian hyper-cows.


I think if this was an issue at my table I'd probably think about radically simplifying and not including cant and language in ways that can cause confusion. When I've seen games devolve into people staring at their phones it's often because something is happening deep in the weeds that someone (or multiple someones) just doesn't care about.


I envy you.

Most of the people I know have their phone at more or less 24/7 regardless of the activity.


So... in character, have you given them a reason to not trust the seelie as a group? Out of character, have they been taught that the GM's running of the world isn't trustworthy? Because clearly there's something incentivizing this behavior.

Not really. Although the pookha in their party teaches that lesson pretty well.


Talakeal, historically, places too much emphasis on the "Challenge" aesthetic, to the extent that he isn't having fun unless his players think his game is too hard. So it's not surprising to be able to evaluate a statement as, "modules are too easy".

While that is technically true, it is misleading as it is putting the cart before the horse.

I find games with no realistic possibility of failure or requirement to put thought into it to be boring and not really "games". Generally, adventures I design have about a 5% failure rate, with individual encounters havng about a .5% failure rate. Note that these are not TPKs... TPKs are all but unheard of at my table.

The problem is that my players (mostly Bob) have self-esteem issues so that they blame their failures on someone else (either the GM or the module or another player) because the idea that their actions (or even the dice) contributed to the failure is inconceivable. Combine that with a miserly attitude where they (again mostly Bob) refuse to use consumables and insist on stripping every list bit of treasure and XP from the adventure (including what is clearly optional side content) and it creates issues.

Note however, this is not something unique to my table. I have absolutely seen this same behavior from them at other tables, and I have absolutely seen them complain that modules are too hard (and sometimes I agree, see my multiple rants about Delta Green modules with absolutely impossible to guess victory conditions).

[Batcathat]

I thought of an example that's not a perfect match, but might be helpful.

Talakeal, have you ever replayed an open-world computer game (like Skyrim or Fallout or something along those lines) or even just played it for the first time while consulting a walkthrough or a wiki? And if so, do you think that knowing the ins and outs of the game meant it suddenly became entirely linear and rail-roady?

EDIT: Nevermind, I noticed that comparison has already been brought up. Still, I think it's a valid point.

[NichG]

Is it any wonder that I am extra cautious about taking actions that feel like railroading to me? This entire post is written presupposing that I must be running a railroad, based on nothing I actually said.

...

But if one path is easier, why would the players not take it? Why would they deliberately choose a sub-optimal path?

...

Some approaches to problems are vastly more efficient than other approaches. If the GM simply tells the players which approach is most efficient, the players would be fools not to take that approach, rendering all other approaches moot. To me, this is railroading, as you are effectively taking all other approaches off the table.


This argument only possibly holds for scenarios that are already railroads. So yeah, what you say might be true - but only if you have a scenario with a single path of action that is clearly better than all others could possibly be, for all possible players, motivations, aesthetics, etc. Just hiding that path and making the players feel around in the dark to find it doesn't stop that from being a railroad.

If your scenario is as open-ended and diverse as you talk about later when comparing RPGs and cRPGs, you can tell the players everything about what *you* would do, and it shouldn't mean that that option is actually what they would find the best option to pursue. Because in an open-ended scenario, you cannot have thought of everything. And in a non-railroaded scenario, different viable paths will be optimal under different people's goals and aesthetics.

Like, you mention 'why would you go with the unseelie rather than the fey baron?'. Well, in a scenario where the unseelie and the fey baron both demand different prices for their aid and provide equal contribution towards the resolution of the threat, different players characters may prefer different prices. In a scenario where the Fomorians could be viably fought off by the PCs but just with a very high risk, different players may prefer the risk of consequence to the definite cost of whatever the price is. In such a diverse scenario you could readily and freely say 'if it were me, I'd tell the fey baron about the attack on Muir woods and agree to perform a future courier favor taking no more than one day and threatening not my life or those of the lives I care about - thats what I think the optimal route is' and the players could still, totally rationally, still say 'nah we go with the unseelie and poison this CEO for them in exchange for them blowing up the Fomorians'.



The players chose to talk the Seelie into helping them. In my opinion, the easiest way to do this was to make those tasked with defending Muir Woods aware of the impending attack. But the players could have come up with a better plan I didn't think of, or they could have made a worse plan work. Hell... if they hadn't flubbed their persuasion roll their initial plan of convincing the Seelie to attack the formorians "because they are there" could have yielded results despite it being, imo, a plan that was likely doomed to failure.


See, if you're saying 'the players could have come up with a better plan I didn't think of', then you're as much as saying 'even if I gave them perfect information about the scenario and my thoughts on it, the course of action I suggest might not even be the best!' So if what you say about your own scenario is true then your worry that too much information would spoil the scenario is, by your own admission, unfounded.

The most open-ended, non-railroady questions for a campaign to ask are the ones whose answer depends on the person. And if you want that to be a challenge, ask the questions where the answer will depend on the person and they haven't figured out their own answer yet. With those sorts of questions, no amount of communication from the GM can make the challenge trivial, because the GM cannot read the players minds and know what they would truly be happiest with.



If the fight is still a challenge after being told everything about the encounter and being told what the optimal tactics are as the GM sees them, then I would argue that it wouldn't be a fair challenge going in blind. And, in such a case, the optimal tactics are probably to avoid the encounter entirely!


Take a Balor from the 3.5e Monster Manual, it explicitly has a list of its standard tactics for the first four rounds of a fight. Give a group of four players a set of pre-gen Lv16 characters - Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue lets say - that are not hyper-optimized but are comfortably competent, and run them against the Balor, promising to follow the Balor's combat script and letting them see the Balor's stat block in the monster manual as well as the stat blocks of anything the Balor summons. Restrict the players to 15 minutes to familiarize themselves with their pre-gens and the Balor stat block before the encounter, and no more than 10 minutes per action during combat. Allow both sides one round to pre-buff (its in the Balor's script). It will neither be a cakewalk nor will it be unfairly impossible, nor will it be simply up to the dice.

Lv16s vs a CR 20 encounter is readily doable blind by experienced D&D players. With the Balor restricted to its script (regardless of whether its opponents know the script or not), it'll be a bit easier because the script is dumb compared to the full on teleport kiting that it should really do, but there's still a power gap there.



cRPGs are vastly different from tabletop RPGs.

First of all, they can't account for out of the box thinking. You can never kidnap the bosses family for leverage, or borrow a magic item from a friend in a neighboring kingdom, or tunnel directly into the treasure room bypassing the rest of the dungeon, or any of the countless other things you could do in a traditional RPG module with perfect information.

On the contrary, this point makes GM transparency even less of a problem, because there are far more ways for players to come up with things the GM didn't think of and beat the GM's theoretical 'optimum' path.

Giving the information to let players think about those alternatives that they couldn't if they didn't know there was a point to it is in fact great challenging gameplay. Heist games have to be structured like this to be any good - too much randomness or hidden information and you can't plan, and the heist genre is all about the elaborate plan (and about the plan going wrong, but usually due to a single point of divergence in the information that then cascades out). When you know the guard rotation and whether you can or can't pick a lock and how long it will take and all of that, the heist scenario becomes a search problem - a kind of puzzle - and the GM can happily set it up and say 'I didn't actually compute a solution for your characters, but you've got lots of abilities and you know everything I do about the situation, so figure it out yourselves'.


Second, they aren't fair fights to begin with. Tabletop RPG modules are written with the expectation of a fair challenge going in blind. RPGs aren't, because you are expected to play them over and over again until you get them right. Hardcore mode with considered to be a challenge for advanced players, not the expectation for noobies!

Aren't you basically conceding the point then, that its possible to design games that are fair and challenging despite perfect information? If cRPGs can do it, you can design TTRPG scenarios the same way, and provide the information that makes them fair.

Beyond that I'd say the particular criticism of 'you are expected to play them over and over again until you get them right' only applies to Divinity: Original Sin out of the games I mentioned. I can easily believe that a careful, average player can get through BG3 blind on Normal without ever having a TPK. I had one TPK when I was rushing something I shouldn't, and otherwise all of my save/load shenanigans were situations which would have been 'play on through' in a TTRPG - stuff where I was trying to get the best outcome or pull off some trick like winning a fight you're not supposed to be able to. Pathfinder: WotR is somewhere in the middle, but even there I think I did more save/load stuff due to the Act 2 time limit (and that out of a personal hate for invisible time limits in games) than specifically because of losing a given fight.


Third, most computer RPGs have a large degree of manual dexterity involved, which bypasses a lot of the knowledge requirements.

If you look at the *actual RPGs I listed* manual dexterity is not involved in any of them. Pathfinder WotR is turn based, BG3 is turn based, Divinity: Original Sin is turn based. Please don't make up irrelevant details when trying to argue your point.


That being said, although I am sure there are some out there, I have yet to play a computer RPG that I can't utterly trivialize after multiple playthroughs.

Try Pillars of Eternity 2 with the challenge mode that makes you cart around a kid everywhere and not let them die, and tell me that multiple playthroughs lets you 'utterly trivialize' it.


Woah, hold on. Perfect information only goes one way. It is impossible to have a game where both sides have perfect information. Best case scenario, attempting it ends up with a Princess Bride style"I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know...." loop and nobody ever actually makes a move.

We're playing chess, we each must talk aloud about how we plan to move and what responses we're considering; we must also point out anything we notice about the other player's move. Assume this is being done in good faith - yes you can refrain from saying something or talk slowly in theory, but we both agree not to do that.
We each get 3 minutes per move for this.

We have equal information about the other player's thought process and perfect information about the game state. The game also will finish within 2 hours at most.

[Vahnavoi]

Woah, hold on. Perfect information only goes one way. It is impossible to have a game where both sides have perfect information. Best case scenario, attempting it ends up with a Princess Bride style"I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know...." loop and nobody ever actually makes a move.

The applicable part from Princess Bride is "you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

Because what you just said is completely incorrect. In a sequential perfect information games with both players playing perfectly, what typically happens is a draw, rules allowing. There are no interminable loops - the first player makes the best possible opening move, the second player answers with best possible counterplay, and so it goes until a conclusion is reached. The XKCD comic about Tic-Tac-Toe comic illustrates this.

You continue making bizarre assertions here:


You seem to be stuck on the literal definition of the word optimization. Optimization cannot exist in reality. Much like "perfection" or "infinite" it is a concept, not something that actually exists. That doesn't mean that people don't use it all the time in day to day speech. Hell, there are entire RPG boards dedicated to "optimization". Wouldn't your time be better spent arguing with them than with me?

That's complete nonsense. Optimization is a practice, the presence and absence of optimal strategies something that can be concretely mathematically studied and then applied. Everything me and NichG have been saying is about practical qualities of existing, playable games - qualities you could leverage to improve your game design if you bothered to actually get your terms straight.

It's a long way to get you to understand the simple idea that you can give way more information to your players than you think, without it having all the negative ramifications you imagine.

[Talakeal]

This argument only possibly holds for scenarios that are already railroads. So yeah, what you say might be true - but only if you have a scenario with a single path of action that is clearly better than all others could possibly be, for all possible players, motivations, aesthetics, etc. Just hiding that path and making the players feel around in the dark to find it doesn't stop that from being a railroad.

So would you consider a dungeon crawl with an open floor plan and no plot what-so-ever a "railroad"?

Because if I have a map of the dungeon that includes the locations of all treasures, routes, monsters, and traps, including hidden ones, and the monsters stat blocks, I guarantee you that I can come up with a route that has a drastically higher reward to risk ratio than anyone could realistically stumble upon using only in character information.

Or hell. The players want to get into a locked room. Is this a railroad?

The GM doesn't tell them they have to get in, the players chose this goal for themselves. The GM has no plans for how they could get in; they could kick the door down, pick the lock, search for a key, teleport, turn incorporal, shrink down and crawl under the crack, try and bluff someone into letting them in, create a diversion and force the guards inside to come out, tunnel through the wall, blow the wall down, dig under the wall, etc. etc. etc.

But, if the players know that there is a key hidden under a fake rock in the garden, why would they bother with any of these things? Using the key is clearly the optimal route.


See, if you're saying 'the players could have come up with a better plan I didn't think of', then you're as much as saying 'even if I gave them perfect information about the scenario and my thoughts on it, the course of action I suggest might not even be the best!' So if what you say about your own scenario is true then your worry that too much information would spoil the scenario is, by your own admission, unfounded.

Right, but failure is off the table. There is now zero possibility of actually losing.

Likewise, most players are, to put it bluntly, not invested enough in the game to actually look for some better solution when they have a nice, easy, simple, straightforward, guaranteed to work solution handed to them.

This isn't really a game, this is more just the players acting out the GMs railroad. Honestly, it's kind of an inversion of a traditional module. In a traditional module, the GM gives the players a goal and then lets them figure out how they are going to accomplish it. In this hypothetical, the PCs tell the GM their goal, and then the GM tells them how to accomplish it.


Giving the information to let players think about those alternatives that they couldn't if they didn't know there was a point to it is in fact great challenging gameplay. Heist games have to be structured like this to be any good - too much randomness or hidden information and you can't plan, and the heist genre is all about the elaborate plan (and about the plan going wrong, but usually due to a single point of divergence in the information that then cascades out). When you know the guard rotation and whether you can or can't pick a lock and how long it will take and all of that, the heist scenario becomes a search problem - a kind of puzzle - and the GM can happily set it up and say 'I didn't actually compute a solution for your characters, but you've got lots of abilities and you know everything I do about the situation, so figure it out yourselves'.

That's actually exactly what I am saying. That's a very good way to put it.

Playing with full knowledge is a lot less like a traditional adventure RPG and a lot more like planning a heist.

And, IMO, planning a heist is a puzzle, not a game.

Now, you can make it a game by adding in elements that make it difficult to execute the plan or force you to improvise in real time, for example, Teris is the quintessential "puzzle game" yet it still relies heavily on RNG and manual dexterity, but those aren't going to be present in a traditional tabletop RPG.


Take a Balor from the 3.5e Monster Manual, it explicitly has a list of its standard tactics for the first four rounds of a fight. Give a group of four players a set of pre-gen Lv16 characters - Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue lets say - that are not hyper-optimized but are comfortably competent, and run them against the Balor, promising to follow the Balor's combat script and letting them see the Balor's stat block in the monster manual as well as the stat blocks of anything the Balor summons. Restrict the players to 15 minutes to familiarize themselves with their pre-gens and the Balor stat block before the encounter, and no more than 10 minutes per action during combat. Allow both sides one round to pre-buff (its in the Balor's script). It will neither be a cakewalk nor will it be unfairly impossible, nor will it be simply up to the dice.

Lv16s vs a CR 20 encounter is readily doable blind by experienced D&D players. With the Balor restricted to its script (regardless of whether its opponents know the script or not), it'll be a bit easier because the script is dumb compared to the full-on teleport kiting that it should really do, but there's still a power gap there.

You aren't describing an RPG scenario. You are making up your own game with a bunch of artificial rules.

Throwing a bunch of pre-gen characters at a balrog and then not giving the players sufficient time to even learn their own character's abilities, let alone the balor's, doesn't prove anything, and it certainly isn't anything comparable to a full information scenario.

I can guarantee you that if you gave me an actual sixteenth level party that exists in the world and which I am familiar and put me against a balor that is forced to follow a combat script, I am going to dribble it like a basket-ball.


Of course, that isn't really comparable to what we are actually discussing; because the key factor is the GM telling the player's what to do to win.

At which point, I don't really have to engage with the game at all to win.

If the GM shouts "Ok, next round the balrog is casting blasphemy, so make sure your cleric casts silence!" I can just respond "Ok, my cleric casts silence. What should I do next turn?" ad nauseum.


Aren't you basically conceding the point then, that its possible to design games that are fair and challenging despite perfect information? If cRPGs can do it, you can design TTRPG scenarios the same way, and provide the information that makes them fair.

Absolutely. I conceded that point three posts ago. Hell, I outright *made* that point three posts ago. Because it isn't a point I am actually defending. I have no stake in propping up a strawman.

The point I am actually making is that in the vast majority of RPG scenarios, if the GM is simply going to tell you the best way to resolve encounters, then there is no challenge, excitement, or decision making inherent in the game unless the players decide to inject it in artificially, and if they are doing that the game is more of a collaborative story-telling game than a typical RPG where you are playing a character and trying to accomplish said character's goals in character..


If you look at the *actual RPGs I listed* manual dexterity is not involved in any of them. Pathfinder WotR is turn based, BG3 is turn based, Divinity: Original Sin is turn based. Please don't make up irrelevant details when trying to argue your point.

C'mon dude, pot meet kettle and all that.

I am talking about tabletop RPG scenarios, and you are the one trying to bring computer rpg's into the mix.

I didn't realize you were suddenly redefining our argument about tabletop RPGs to be exclusively about three specific computer games I have never played and dismissing all other games are "irrelevant".

I am not "making up" anything; it is an objective fact that the majority of computer RPGs which I have played require some manual dexterity on the part of the player. Not all of them mind you, the Interplay Fallout's don't for example*, but the vast majority do. Heck, even Final Fantasy games often require you to input button combinations or play timing games for certain moves.

And finally, I am not trying to argue a point. The only reason I even brought up manual dexterity is to preemptively shoot down the argument "Well if RPGs are so easy, how come people can fail at them even if they are following a guide?", to which the answer is almost certainly either RNG or lack of manual dexterity.



*: Well, not much. It is absolutely still possible to misclick your mouse and shoot your ally in the back or drop your controller on the floor and not be able to pick it up before your turn timer ends or whatever.


Because what you just said is completely incorrect. In a sequential perfect information games with both players playing perfectly, what typically happens is a draw, rules allowing. There are no interminable loops - the first player makes the best possible opening move, the second player answers with best possible counterplay, and so it goes until a conclusion is reached. The XKCD comic about Tic-Tac-Toe comic illustrates this.

Full agreement here.


That's complete nonsense. Optimization is a practice, the presence and absence of optimal strategies something that can be concretely mathematically studied and then applied. Everything me and NichG have been saying is about practical qualities of existing, playable games - qualities you could leverage to improve your game design if you bothered to actually get your terms straight.

Again, agreed.

I am not even sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you saying that optimization is binary? You either have the mathematically optimal solution or you don't? And even if you are 99.99% efficient, you are still not "optimal" because optimal is 100% or bust?

Because an RPG module can absolutely be optimized under this definition. Set a goal. And then mathematically fine tune your strategy to achieve your goal with the minimum of risk.

NichG's analogy of planning a heist is very close to what I am getting at. Do you not agree that it is possible to optimize a heist when given full information about the scenario?

[Unoriginal]

The problem is that my players (mostly Bob) have self-esteem issues so that they blame their failures on someone else (either the GM or the module or another player) because the idea that their actions (or even the dice) contributed to the failure is inconceivable. Combine that with a miserly attitude where they (again mostly Bob) refuse to use consumables and insist on stripping every list bit of treasure and XP from the adventure (including what is clearly optional side content) and it creates issues.

Note however, this is not something unique to my table. I have absolutely seen this same behavior from them at other tables, and I have absolutely seen them complain that modules are too hard (and sometimes I agree, see my multiple rants about Delta Green modules with absolutely impossible to guess victory conditions).

Between this, the fact that you get blamed for going too hard and too easy wit no middle ground, the fact that the one player comfortable with talking in-character goes into self-depreciating tirades when he doesn't figure out something, and the new player who you describes as trying to gaslight you...

Have you considered the idea that the relationship between you and those players is just toxic and you shouldn't play with them?

Because what you have here is neither a good gaming situation nor a good relationship.

[Batcathat]

I am not "making up" anything; it is an objective fact that the majority of computer RPGs which I have played require some manual dexterity on the part of the player. Not all of them mind you, the Interplay Fallout's don't for example*, but the vast majority do.

Great, so let's use that as an example. As it happens, I'm currently replaying Fallout 2. I've played through it many times since it came out and while I can't claim perfect knowledge, it's quite vast (and probably a lot more detailed than what most GMs could come up with if asked to explain everything that's going on, I would guess). By your logic, that should make the game basically a railroad, but it very much ain't. Because I play a different character, because I like trying different things, because I'm a different person and probably a few other reasons, but the short version is that just because I know the game, the setting and the plot very well doesn't make it any more railroady than the first time I played it, since I still have as many (or as few, depending on how you view it) options as if I didn't know the first thing about it.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Between this, the fact that you get blamed for going too hard and too easy wit no middle ground, the fact that the one player comfortable with talking in-character goes into self-depreciating tirades when he doesn't figure out something, and the new player who you describes as trying to gaslight you...

Have you considered the idea that the relationship between you and those players is just toxic and you shouldn't play with them?

Because what you have here is neither a good gaming situation nor a good relationship.

Plus, apparently, everyone has their phone out all the time. Again in my experience (which is all I have to go on!) people don't pull their phones out at the table unless they're bored enough or pissed off enough to disassociate. Someone looking at their phone for longer than it takes to read a text is a sign to me that I need to move things along, someone's bored or feels left out.

If people aren't absorbing the information, aren't engaging with the world, aren't chatting and bantering with each other and are looking at their phones too much to pay attention -- is anyone having any fun?

[Telok]

Have you considered the idea that the relationship between you and those players is just toxic and you shouldn't play with them?

Because what you have here is neither a good gaming situation nor a good relationship.

If the only thing you ever hear about air travel is the horrible crashes shouldn't you never fly anywhere? If the only thing you read about one person's cars on a car forum is some mechanical hiccup once every six months then isn't that evidence the car is broken beyond repair? If the only time trailer parks make the news is crime and tornados does that mean all trailer parks are constant hotbeds of criminal activity that get hit by tornados?

Onward!
So, following my last incoherent ramble and having gotten some sleep, I think I was trying to talk about what game mechanics prime players to behave in different ways. Games that only really have combat rules and set ever increasing combat powers as the core of the characters will prime players to do combat & power-up stuff as a main goal. When faced with situations that aren't in the fight & loot category they flounder. And in my experience many players carry that over system to system.

Had that happen again recently to me. I set up an encounter, obviously a trap, that started social, a bomb went off (two really but only one was a munitions exploding) and then went into combat when the PCs started hitting people. They won the fight trivially of course. They had about ten or twelve hours while the bad guy leader regenerated from faking his death at the hands of the PC, got the video from the hired camera crew, very lightly doctored the video, and sent it to the police. The PCs, despite being among the victims this time, literally stealthed out and never talked to anyone. When the police call to board their ship and search for suspects they offer snide insulting remarks and run off. The PCs have all the skills, tools, allies, and ability to deal with social stuff. But most of the players are so monofocused on combat capability from years of D&D that its all they really think they can do. Its how they approach everything, like a combat encounter because that's the stuff thats been hammered into them as the most important part of the game over years of D&D & adjacent system's modules.

I'm wondering if Tak's players aren't having something like that going on. They're

[Batcathat]

If the only thing you ever hear about air travel is the horrible crashes shouldn't you never fly anywhere? If the only thing you read about one person's cars on a car forum is some mechanical hiccup once every six months then isn't that evidence the car is broken beyond repair? If the only time trailer parks make the news is crime and tornados does that mean all trailer parks are constant hotbeds of criminal activity that get hit by tornados?

While this is true, Talakeal seems like the equivalent of someone who can't get on a plane without at least one engine falling off halfway through the flight.

[NichG]

So would you consider a dungeon crawl with an open floor plan and no plot what-so-ever a "railroad"?

Yeah actually, if you remove all things from the scenario which could possibly make alternate goals or decisions at all meaningful, its a railroad. Like, the average XCrawl module is a railroad - you have a linear series of rooms each with a challenge, you take on the challenge and if you live you go to the next room until you're done.



Or hell. The players want to get into a locked room. Is this a railroad?

The GM doesn't tell them they have to get in, the players chose this goal for themselves. The GM has no plans for how they could get in; they could kick the door down, pick the lock, search for a key, teleport, turn incorporal, shrink down and crawl under the crack, try and bluff someone into letting them in, create a diversion and force the guards inside to come out, tunnel through the wall, blow the wall down, dig under the wall, etc. etc. etc.

But, if the players know that there is a key hidden under a fake rock in the garden, why would they bother with any of these things? Using the key is clearly the optimal route.


I mean why not? The rogue might want to show off their lockpicking. The barbarian might feel angry at the owner of the door and want to destroy things. These could be meaningful, agentic choices. Maybe teleporting is faster than going to get the key, maybe going incorporeal will be advantageous to things that happen after bypassing the door, maybe convincing someone that they should be allowed through will set up a larger scam in the future, maybe creating a diversion lets them take care of those guards who might be a problem for things going forward, etc.

If you sterilize the scenario so much that there's basically no relationship between the players, the characters, the way of doing things, and what happens next then yeah you've basically pushed the actual interesting agency to the edges of the session - to that one choice of 'we want to get into this room'. And even if a player couldn't put their finger on it, they may well legitimately feel like the game is railroady if 99% of the time is being spent on this kind of linear gameplay.

Or, you know, you could also just not have a key hidden under a fake rock in the garden. You're the one making the scenario fragile to information here with that choice. It doesn't mean its never okay to have a key under the rock, but when all situations start to be like that then again you're sort of excluding opportunities for truly meaningful decisions from the bulk of your gameplay, and you'll ultimately have an overall story structure that reflects less of the characters and the players are more of your own preconceptions about how things should be resolved.

If this is just one or two minutes of gameplay in an entire session made up of dozens of different moments then you haven't lost much if it gets trivially resolved. You're only in trouble if this kind of moment is the only thing you know how to design and you make them all like that.



Because if I have a map of the dungeon that includes the locations of all treasures, routes, monsters, and traps, including hidden ones, and the monsters stat blocks, I guarantee you that I can come up with a route that has a drastically higher reward to risk ratio than anyone could realistically stumble upon using only in character information.


And yet, if its a well designed dungeon, someone else with the same information as you may come up with a different route that they're happier with than your route even if they get to see your route. Because they're more interested in interacting with certain things than others, because they've specialized their character in a different way, because they value reward vs risk differently than you, because you didn't think of something that they think of, because they intend to use the improvised free form actions that the tabletop format allows to try something that you wouldn't have thought to try, etc.



Right, but failure is off the table. There is now zero possibility of actually losing.


Not if your players want different things than you would want in their place.

Recent campaign, the players were playing villain characters, and the conceit of the game was that villains gained power by accomplishing ambitions - but the players each had to determine their ambitions and the subgoals for those ambitions. I was *very* forthright about information about the world, made divinatory superpowers widely available and the players made use of these, etc.

One of the players picked that their ambitions would be to collect sets of things of greater and greater scope - starting with rare playing cards as an street-level villain, to racing vehicles, to kaiju, and ultimately they wanted to own the moon. At the kaiju level, a frequent divinatory search was basically trying to find things to capture and turn into the character's ideal Pokemon team. They had all the information I came up with, as I came up with it. It was still very hard, taking multiple sessions, for them to find the creatures they would be satisfied with; to find the particular approach they wanted to take to capturing them; to figuring out what sorts of opportunity for augmentation and transformation they wanted to pursue for each one if any.

No hidden information of note, no obvious 'failure' state other than being dissatisfied, hours of meaningful gameplay for that player, and several instances of difficult choices even in one case requiring time shenanigans for an 'undo'.

Same campaign, another character wanted vengeance on a Siberian megacity technocratic cult. The character had access to the military advisors of a high-level government, spies within the megacity, and some of the same divinatory stuff. So I was pretty open about 'what would Tunguska do if you do this?' 'what would Tunguska do if you do that?'. Their specific plans still changed multiple times over the course of 5 or 6 sessions, and the final resolution didn't look like any of them. It was a legitimately hard problem - the character had the power to act decisively in any number of ways, but they also cared about the fallout of how they went about it (to the extent at least of avoiding a quagmire of leaving behind enemies who would show up multiple sessions later to cause trouble or ending up in a forever war). In the end, the solution they converged on was to 'help' their enemy achieve their goal but basically sabotage the actual form of that success in a way that would be like having everyone walk into the soylent green machine with a smile on their face, thinking it was a door to a utopia.

I certainly didn't play their character for them in that sequence, even if I was giving them very thorough information at every stage - including things like how their portal project worked and so on. There was no single dominating optimal path in that situation either, and another PC could have wiped them out by, for example, literally capturing the entirety of Siberia into a photograph world and then burning the photo. It would have been a lot simpler, like taking the key under the rock, but it wouldn't have satisfied the player's personal goals and aesthetics about what victory actually looks like.

No need for the players to 'act out the GMs plan' in either of those cases, even if I ended up suggesting dozens of viable ways the PCs could accomplish their goals.



That's actually exactly what I am saying. That's a very good way to put it.

Playing with full knowledge is a lot less like a traditional adventure RPG and a lot more like planning a heist.

And, IMO, planning a heist is a puzzle, not a game.

Now, you can make it a game by adding in elements that make it difficult to execute the plan or force you to improvise in real time, for example, Teris is the quintessential "puzzle game" yet it still relies heavily on RNG and manual dexterity, but those aren't going to be present in a traditional tabletop RPG.


This is a failure of imagination on your part. You have an excessively narrow view of what's possible in an extremely open-ended medium. Heists do have puzzle elements for sure, but you're literally saying there are 'puzzle games' and 'puzzles are not games' in the same breath.

A good heist game is going to be integrated with the world, not just be a modular puzzle that you solve (and any viable solution is fine) and then forget about. A basic structure for example is, the players plan, but during the heist the characters individually have some opportunity to go off-plan for some personal (or even group) rewards that had not been considered during planning. The party wants to steal the Gold Heron, but the party's cat burglar sees someone among the guests who is part of their long-term vengeance scheme against the guy who got them sent to jail - do they deviate and risk screwing up the plan to pursue their own personal vendetta? Is the plan robust enough that it can survive that, or was it a very 'optimal' plan in terms of time and resources, but brittle and having no margin for deviation?



You aren't describing an RPG scenario. You are making up your own game with a bunch of artificial rules.

Throwing a bunch of pre-gen characters at a balrog and then not giving the players sufficient time to even learn their own character's abilities, let alone the balor's, doesn't prove anything, and it certainly isn't anything comparable to a full information scenario.

I can guarantee you that if you gave me an actual sixteenth level party that exists in the world and which I am familiar and put me against a balor that is forced to follow a combat script, I am going to dribble it like a basket-ball.


Adjust the level accordingly then until its a fair fight.

And there's always finite time to learn your characters' abilities. There's always finite time to work out a plan of action. The challenge in such a scenario is how quickly and accurately you can navigate the space of possibilities and strategies, not 'oh no I used Fireball but its immune'.



Of course, that isn't really comparable to what we are actually discussing; because the key factor is the GM telling the player's what to do to win.

At which point, I don't really have to engage with the game at all to win.

If the GM shouts "Ok, next round the balrog is casting blasphemy, so make sure your cleric casts silence!" I can just respond "Ok, my cleric casts silence. What should I do next turn?" ad nauseum.


And yet someone else at the table may realize 'oh wait, if the Cleric casts Silence on a pebble or something then the Balor might move, or if they put it on the Balor itself then SR and saves is an issue and they might burn their action for nothing. Instead, maybe we scatter and maintain range that round - sure one person might be Dazed, but if the Balor is spending their action in exchange for one of ours, that's not so bad - that burns down the duration on the Implosion it cast on round 1 as well. Or, what if we ready to interrupt with an attack so that way we might cancel the Silence *and* get some damage dealt as part of the deal?'

You are not a perfect strategist, your 'GM's path' is not going to be the best play. In the case where the players have all the information about the Balor and what it will do, your own advice isn't actually adding anything unless you're just that much smarter than all your players.



Absolutely. I conceded that point three posts ago. Hell, I outright *made* that point three posts ago. Because it isn't a point I am actually defending. I have no stake in propping up a strawman.


In which case, you don't need to be afraid of giving your players information!



The point I am actually making is that in the vast majority of RPG scenarios, if the GM is simply going to tell you the best way to resolve encounters, then there is no challenge, excitement, or decision making inherent in the game unless the players decide to inject it in artificially, and if they are doing that the game is more of a collaborative story-telling game than a typical RPG where you are playing a character and trying to accomplish said character's goals in character..

C'mon dude, pot meet kettle and all that.

I am talking about tabletop RPG scenarios, and you are the one trying to bring computer rpg's into the mix.

I didn't realize you were suddenly redefining our argument about tabletop RPGs to be exclusively about three specific computer games I have never played and dismissing all other games are "irrelevant".


Our argument is about false assertions you made, which you then asked me for examples to show those assertions are false:

[quote=Talakeal]
We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort.
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze.
[quote]

I gave examples that are counter to your false assertions when you asked for proof that those assertions were false. Any counter example proves you wrong. When I gave counter examples, you then *invented false things about them* in order to still maintain your point. That is arguing in bad faith.

There's no point in talking to you, so I'm going to block you now.

[Unoriginal]

If the only thing you ever hear about air travel is the horrible crashes shouldn't you never fly anywhere? If the only thing you read about one person's cars on a car forum is some mechanical hiccup once every six months then isn't that evidence the car is broken beyond repair? If the only time trailer parks make the news is crime and tornados does that mean all trailer parks are constant hotbeds of criminal activity that get hit by tornados?

There's a difference between someone describing an one-time-event, and someone describing a recurring situation with related one-time-events keeping it fresh and varied.

If one person describes their car on a forum saying "I don't know what happened, there was a loud 'BANG' when I went faster than 100 km/h yesterday" and then adds "usually, the engine lets out a puff of smoke whenever I take a turn, I can't turn the radio off, there's a weird scratching noise whenever I change gears and for some reason the fuel tank empties twice as fast as what the amount I drive should", it's pretty obvious the loud 'BANG' alone isn't what makes the car an issue.

[Quertus]

Or hell. The players want to get into a locked room. Is this a railroad?

The GM doesn't tell them they have to get in, the players chose this goal for themselves. The GM has no plans for how they could get in; they could kick the door down, pick the lock, search for a key, teleport, turn incorporal, shrink down and crawl under the crack, try and bluff someone into letting them in, create a diversion and force the guards inside to come out, tunnel through the wall, blow the wall down, dig under the wall, etc. etc. etc.

But, if the players know that there is a key hidden under a fake rock in the garden, why would they bother with any of these things? Using the key is clearly the optimal route.

Using that garden key is not optimal if
a) the garden is watched -> they are a1) more likely to be noticed and the guards of the room be on alert, or a2) likely to be noticed and the home invasion tied back to them after the fact;
b) the use of the fake rock / key is likely to be noticed after the fact, revealing that those who performed the home invasion (ie, the party) had that information, if their ability to have that information (psychic powers, informant, whatever) is something the PCs don't want getting out;
c) they want to frame some other group, whose modus operandi involves one of those other techniques;

etc.

What is a railroad is if you do not allow all the "kick the door down, pick the lock, search for a key, teleport, turn incorporal, shrink down and crawl under the crack, try and bluff someone into letting them in, create a diversion and force the guards inside to come out, tunnel through the wall, blow the wall down, dig under the wall, etc. etc. etc." solutions to work just because the rock and key exist / that's the solution you want them to use.

[Unoriginal]

Using that garden key is not optimal if
a) the garden is watched -> they are a1) more likely to be noticed and the guards of the room be on alert, or a2) likely to be noticed and the home invasion tied back to them after the fact;
b) the use of the fake rock / key is likely to be noticed after the fact, revealing that those who performed the home invasion (ie, the party) had that information, if their ability to have that information (psychic powers, informant, whatever) is something the PCs don't want getting out;
c) they want to frame some other group, whose modus operandi involves one of those other techniques;

etc.

What is a railroad is if you do not allow all the "kick the door down, pick the lock, search for a key, teleport, turn incorporal, shrink down and crawl under the crack, try and bluff someone into letting them in, create a diversion and force the guards inside to come out, tunnel through the wall, blow the wall down, dig under the wall, etc. etc. etc." solutions to work just because the rock and key exist / that's the solution you want them to use.

Indeed.

Railroading is making the players' choices not matter, either by not letting them choose and just telling them what they're doing to get to a predetermined outcome, or by pretending they can choose and then telling them what they're doing to the predetermined outcome anyway.

Reminding a player there is another option or asking them why they're not using an option the characters would remember they have is not railroading in any way, shape or form, so long as the players are free to ignore this option if they want to.

Presenting a situation with only one solution isn't inherently railroading (ex: if the MacGuffin is a box that can only be opened by using a Wish), but it makes it a pretty linear situation until you add decision points (ex: the box may only be open via a Wish, but there are many ways to seek one, or decide the box is best left unopen, or attempt to trick the bad guys that you've opened it with a replica, etc).

[Kish]

While this is true, Talakeal seems like the equivalent of someone who can't get on a plane without at least one engine falling off halfway through the flight.
Yes, this. If I knew someone who had ridden a plane many hundreds of times over twenty years and every single one of them involved some horrible wreck story, I'd absolutely tell that person to avoid planes (pretending for the moment that that person had not already been arrested for clearly sabotaging planes in some way even if they couldn't figure out exactly how).

[Quertus]

At the end of the day,

a) I love the idea of a group of kids blowing up an apartment building to kill off a Fomorian threat; :smallbiggrin:

and

b) Unless the players explicitly asked for it, I hate the idea of Talakeal running yet another game involving the PCs being low-to-no-Agency Children (even if last time it was less factual and more theme ala "Goonies" iirc).

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, Talakeal, but I thought your players really didn't enjoy the "ask NPCs for help" minigame - if that's the case, that might also factor into this problem.

[Kish]

Is it any wonder that I am extra cautious about taking actions that feel like railroading to me? This entire post is written presupposing that I must be running a railroad, based on nothing I actually said.
[...]
Again, you are presupposing a railroad based on nothing.
[...]
So in your opinion, a game where the GM doesn't have anything in mind and leaves it entirely up to the players to come up with a solution is *more* of a railroad than one in which the GM lays out several paths before the PCs and forces them to choose one?

If whatever the PCs try will work, that's a pure sandbox. As unappealing as a railroad in my view, but in any event that's pretty clearly not the case here.


But if one path is easier, why would the players not take it? Why would they deliberately choose a sub-optimal path?

If there is one unambiguously best path for the PCs to take in every situation...

that's a railroad. That's the definition of a railroad. This is the "nothing" that makes people "presuppose" a railroad: the apparent lack of understanding that there's any other way to run a game. Concealing from the PCs and players where the tracks are doesn't make it not a railroad. You now seem to be saying that you're offended that people are accusing you of railroading when you reduced the ambient light to a point where no one could possibly see the tracks so your players would stop saying such mean things, not realizing that "there are actual meaningful choices that aren't 'the right one' or 'one of the wrong ones'" is even a thing.

[Quertus]

If whatever the PCs try will work, that's a pure sandbox.

I certainly hope you're joking. A pure Sandbox just means that, whatever the PCs try, that's The Plot (TM). Whether it works or not is a matter for the game mechanics.

[gatorized]

Then the fomorians attack and the changelings don't assist, at least not until they become aware of the attack, I assume. I don't see why this would stall the game.

Did you ask the players why they're reluctant to provide this information? Maybe they believe the changelings have some alliance or other arrangement with the fomorians, and want to avoid causing tension with a group whose allegiances they're unsure of. Could be any number of reasons, depending on specifics of the game world.

[gbaji]

What's wrong with allowing for the possibility of failure? To me, this is the social equivalent of fudging the dice so the players never lose a fight.

Nothing. But you are the one who created a thread about what I can only assume is "something that went wrong" in your game. So clearly, the fact that the players were unable to figure out what to tell the Seelie was a problem.


We were talking in character. I didn't need to ask "do you tell them about the attack on Muir Woods," because I know they didn't. Just like I don't need to ask you if you brought up the Jabberwocky in your post, I know you didn't because I just read it.

Yes. You did need to ask them this "out of character" precisely because they didn't ask it on their own, but clearly should have. You (the GM) need to determine if that's because they forgot that detail, or don't think that detail is relevant, or are intentionally choosing to conceal it from the folks they are talking to.


Now, as for asking them "why" they didn't bring it up, that is something I didn't do until the scene was over.

Which was too late IMO. If you'd asked the question while the scene was going on, you could have avoided the problem entirely. I get that you chose not to do this. I'm telling you that you needed to do this. I'm not the one writing about my blown up scenario in an online forum. You are. So maybe try listening and taking this advice to heart?


Because asking them is RPG equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; the players will become preoccupied with that bit of data, and the organic conversation is destroyed. They will either assume "this is the right answer, the GM is trying to railroad us," or "this is a trap, the GM is trying to bait us," and in either case the other purposes of the scene; making NPC contacts, learning about Seelie society, and simply having fun RPing with colorful characters, will be forgotten and tossed by the wayside as it all boils down to the one all important question.

I think you are grossly overthinking things and spinning of onto speculative tangents. Most players reaction to asking "Do you tell the Seelie about the planned attack on the Woods" would be to assume that you are simply reminding them about information they have, whicih may be of value to the folks they are trying to get help from. Nothing more.

I'm not telling you to start with this. But when they fail to mention the attack, despite many opportunities to do so (and with no conversation about it in your presence), that's the time to turn to the players directly, as the GM, and ask "Are you planning to tell the Seelie about what you learned from the werewolf about the attack on the Woods"?


The players claimed they didn't think it was significant.

They also said they were confused because they thought Caer (the Changeling word for castle) and Caern (the werewolf word for a holy place) were the same thing. Although this actually confuses me more, because if they thought the changelings were talking about the Werewolf caern, they should have been more likely to bring up the impending attack, not less.

And simply dropping into OOC GM mode to ask one simple question would have revealed this to you before it caused a problem in the game.

So... Next time you'll ask the players questions like this to make sure that they actually clearly understand the details and relevance of information they have, so that this doesn't happen again, right?



However, it is also possible they were simply on zoned out on their phones not paying attention and forgot, and won't admit it. I have had problems with that in the past, so it is impossible to know for sure.

It literally does not matter why they misunderstood the key information in your adventure. What matters is that they did and their lack of answering the Seelie questions with the information you expected them to answer with was a big honking clue to this fact. But instead of stepping out of character for a brief moment, putting on your GM hat, and checking, you instead just barreled on with roleplaying the scene out.

Next time. Check. If you ever find yourself as a GM thinking "why aren't the players doing <insert obvious thing they should be doing here>", that's your clue to verify that they aren't missing or forgetting some key piece of information. The sooner you recognize that this is happening and stop the scene and do that verification, the less harm will be done. The longer your keep going, allowing the PCS to make decisions they would never have made if the players running them didn't forget something, the more angry the players will be when things go wrong.


What are the fomorians planning *is* a direct question.

"Are you sure you want to do that?" Is just a polite way of saying "You are an idiot, don't do that."

These are not the same thing.

They are very similar in that both questions require that the asker and answerer have the same "mental map" (I'm totally going to use this term from now on) of the game world for the answer to make sense.

If you believe that the players both remember that there is a planned attack on Muir Woods, and realize that this is significant and may matter to the folks they're trying to get help from, you will assume that asking "what are the formorians planning?" will prompt them to provide that information. But if the players don't remember or think it's significant, they wont.

In the same way that if you believe that the player realizes that dropping off the wall will result in a 200' fall and kill them, you will assume that asking "are you sure you want to do that" will prompt them to reconsider the decision to drop off the wall. But if the player doesn't realize that "dropping off the wall" means a 200' fall to their death, then they wont.

Both are problematic if the player and the GM aren't on the same page in terms of information.

Given that this is precisely what happened (and also exactly what I predicted was what happened), maybe you should take my advice to heart? Next time, drop out of character and ask some questions to make sure the players have the correct information they need.



The players chose to talk the Seelie into helping them. In my opinion, the easiest way to do this was to make those tasked with defending Muir Woods aware of the impending attack.

Right. But that's not "the easiest way", that was "the only way you thought of", right? You wrote the scenario. The planned attack is what the PCs are expected to use to get some factions to work together to help them deal with the bad guys, right (I'm not super familiar with the setting). And while we can argue about the specifics of how/why the PCs learned of this, it was something that existed and that they could learn (even if "questioning a captured werewolf" wasn't the only way).

Did you actually write anything else into the adventure that provided any other way to do this?


But the players could have come up with a better plan I didn't think of, or they could have made a worse plan work. Hell... if they hadn't flubbed their persuasion roll their initial plan of convincing the Seelie to attack the formorians "because they are there" could have yielded results despite it being, imo, a plan that was likely doomed to failure.

That kinda answers the question. You "didn't think of" any other plan. You clearly did think of the plan of "find out about the planned attack and then use that information to get other folks to help out".

And let me be perfectly clear about this. I'm not the hard core anti-railroad advocate that some are (actually seems like you are far more concerned about this than I am). There will be elements in any adventure that, if looked at objectively, act as a railroad. You created some bad guys. You created a plot the bad guys are engaged in. And you came up with a way the good guys could stop the bad guys. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario from a structural point of view.

Here's the deal though. You avoid railroading in situations like this by allowing the players to come up with different ideas. If they do, and those ideas work, that's great. But... if you have written a way that the problem can be solved into your adventure (and let's be honest, who doesn't?), and the players do *not* come up with any other alternative means to handle things? You need to make sure that they know about and are able to use the one you did come up with.

I often call this the "bail out" technique. If they can't sneak into the castle, or bluff their way in, or disquise themselves as the cleaning service, or pretend they are there to inspect the tapestries, or whatever, then I fall back to whatever I wrote in my scenario. Maybe the same contact who asked them to sneak into the castle to do <whatever> tells them about a disgruntled member of the castle staff, who'll get them in for a price. Heck. I might even foreshadow this by having said contact tell them "I'm working on a way to get you in, but it may take a few days. If you can get in before that, then things might be quicker/easier though...".

You always want to build yourself a way to make the adventure work. And no. That's not railroading. That's just successful scenario design.

Railroading is when you make choices for the players. Presenting them with options is never railroading.


Again, you are presupposing a railroad based on nothing.

I didn't say "the only way the PCs can deal with the werewolves and formians (and whatever other factions are causing them problems) is to get help from the Seelie, and an aliance of factions to help at that". I said that no one faction is strong enough to beat the werewolves in combat in a fair fight (and attacking them in their lair almost garuntees the fight will be unfair in their favor).

I did not say the Seelie had to be involved. I did not say that the werewolves coundn't be beaten outside of combat. I didn't say beating the werewolves was neccesary for the scenario. Heck, I didn't think it needed to be said, but obviously it is possible for the underdog to win due to an unconventional plan or outlandish dice rolls, or a thousand other weird things, nor did I say it was impossible to enlist help from a faction that isn't currently involved.

Sure. But you only wrote the one way to do it, right? And it looks like they tried to use other means, but they failed. So... maybe a railroad. Maybe not. Doesn't really matter. You wrote "this is a way they can do things" into your scenario. If you do that, then you need to not block that option from your players.

But you did. Which is... strange.


You seem to be saying that it is the GM's job to provide alternate solutions. Is that correct?

Sorta. I'm actually a big fan of the GM actually coming up with at least one clear method to solve things (if for no other reason than ensuring that you haven't set up the PCs for an impossible scenerio that will guarantee frustration for the players). We can all that "optionA". As a GM you should be open to other options as well, but having one as a "if all else fails, this is how they can do this" is generally a good idea.

What makes that not a railroad is that you will allow for other options to succeed. Or... even that the PCs may choose not to try do solve that particular problem in the first place (though that may or may not have other consequences depending on the scenario).


So in your opinion, a game where the GM doesn't have anything in mind and leaves it entirely up to the players to come up with a solution is *more* of a railroad than one in which the GM lays out several paths before the PCs and forces them to choose one?

Um... None of the above?

Here's my approach (and this is just mine, so whatever): If I've written a "problem that needs to be solved" into a scenario, then I'm also responsible for writing "a way the problem can be solved" as well. Everything else in the game setting is subject to player choices. The degree to which I've made the decision or created the situation, is the degree to which I'm responsible for the results/choices/whatever surrounding that. But the degree to which the players make decisions, or create situations in the game world, is the degree to which I'm *not* responsible for providing them a solution.

If I create BBEG that is threatening the PCs and/or things/people they care about, then I'm responsible for providing means to deal with it. If I create the "dark tower which holds the <something they need>", then I have to ensure that it's possible to get into the tower and get the "something", right? But if a player decides "my character is going to try to assassinate the head of the thieves guild and take over", then guess what? I'm not going to do anything to provide that PC with a "way to succeed' at that, nor ways to avoid consequences for doing that. I'm just playing out the objects in the game world and how they respond to what the PC is doing.


It wasn't the PCs playing 20 questions. It was one question. And the NPC's were the ones playing the game, all the PCs had to do was answer. Likewise, the players are the ones who are "hemming and hawwing" not me. I am asking very direct clear questions, the players are the ones who are refusing to give a direct answer.

Er. Don't be so literal. It's not about whether it was asking the right question, or giving the right answer. In either case, you were looking for the one specific shibboleth that they needed to provide to unlock the next step in the adventure. You kept asking them the same question, waiting for them to give the "right answer". The players, meanwhile were probably running around the entire scene trying to figure out what you wanted them to do or say, to get that result.

That's what I meant by "playing 20 questions". They had to figure out what you wanted them to do, to get the result they came there to get. But, no matter how many different things they tried, or people they talked to, they could not figure out the secret decoder ring statement you wanted them to say.

And, as it turned out (and several of us posters predicted), the reason is because the players themselves misunderstood the information you had provided earlier, which you expected them to pass on in the scene. That was what was missing, and without it, they could not succeed.


It's analogous to something I used as an example earlier. The PCs find a magic key. Later they find a door with a keyhole. You expect them to try to open it with the key, but instead they are trying to pick the lock, or break down the door, and otherwise use any and every means to get through the door other than use the magic key. At some point, you have to realize that they must have forgotten about the key, and remind them that they have it.

That's what you should have done here.



IMO, players get frustrated when they fail. But they also get frustrated if they feel the GM is leading by the nose.

Sure. It's a balancing thing. Obviously, it would be railroading for you to simply narrate "Ok. You go to the Seelie court thingie, and you tell factionsA, B, and C about the planned attack on the woods, and the factions decide to help you. Now let's move on to the next scene where I'll tell you what your characters are doing".

That's the wrong way to do that. But at some point, when the players are clearly trying to get help, but are failling to provide the information needed to get that help, it's not wrong to remind them that they have this bit of information, and that maybe the folks they're talking to might find that valuable.


So, as a compromise, I tend to give hints and second chances if they are barking up the wrong tree rather than just telling them they fail and moving on to the next scene. Are you saying this is a bad thing?

No. It's not. Why didn't you do that here? The hint should have been reminding them about the information about the attack. What's strange is that you allowed the scene to play out, knowing that this was the information they needed to use to get help, knowing that they desired to get that help, but were for some reason not providing that information, and you never thought to ask why?

You didn't even need to hint. Just remind them that they have the "key". That's usually sufficient in cases like this.



In the previous scene, they had asked the werewolf "What is your plan?" and she told them "We are going to create an army of fomorians, use them to attack the werewolves in Muir woods, and then release the Cataclysm."

In this scene, the players were asked by about half a dozen different Seelie "What are the werewolves planning?".

This could not be any more straightforward. All that is required is that when they are asked a direct question, they mindlessly regurgitate the information that was given to them when they asked the exact same question in the previous scene.

Right. So when they fail to do that, it's a big honking hint that they have forgotten or misunderstood the information you gave them.

Same deal. I give the PCs a key. They they come to a door with a keyhole. But they don't use the key to unlock the door. I can sit there for an entire game session, quetly wondering why they don't just use the key, but that's not terribly useful.

At some point in this process, you must consider that "they forgot about the key" and remind them that they have it.



Or, in my specific case, why would they ever decide to go ask random fairy knights to go on a crusade or unseelie goblins to blow up a building when they know there is a fey baron whose job it is to defend muir woods?

Again. They would. If they remembered about the attack, and realized that this would be of great interest to that Baron. If it should be this obvious to them, but they're missing it anyway, that's when you maybe need to check that they remember the info you gave them.


I'm remdinded of a scenario one of my fellow GMs ran. He's normally an excellent GM. But this one scenario he had set up a big bad guy with a specific invulnerability that required a specific talisman thingie to make it possible to defeat him. In the course of the adventure, we learned a bunch of stuff about the bad guy, interacted with a bunch of NPCs, went on some side quests, helped people etc. Having learned who and where the big bad was, we went off to face him. We had an epic fight, but were stimied becuase while we could deal with his minions, we could not actually defeat him. So we're sitting there, fighting stuff, and suffering spell and spirit attacks from this big bad, round after round, trying everything we could to defeat him. We saw there was this altar thing, and thought we needed to do something with it, so we tried everything, but nothing worked.

Finally, the GM asked us "why aren't you using the talisman?". The entire table responded with "what talisman?". He had literally forgotten to read the bit with the one NPC shaman we'd helped out (who provided us with some info about the big bad), where he handed us a talisman and said to "put the talisman on his place of power, and it'll make him vulnerable to physical damage". Oh hey! That was really important critical information, right? We were supposd to place this special shamanic talisman on the altar thingie and it would force the big bad into tangible form where he could be attacked and killed. Hmmm...

Every GM does this at some point in their gaming career. Don't assume that because you know exactly what the players need to do, and are absolutely certain that you told them this, that they will remember (or that you actually remembered to tell them). Miscommuncation happens. Sometimes with hilarious results.


The key to mitigating the damage caused by this is to realize when the players are failing to do something that they should know to do, and then asking question to verify that they know what to do. Heck. Have this conversation before the scene starts. This is why I'm a big fan of the players actually discussing "the plan" before the scene. I can hear what they are planning, and if I see some gross gap in the plan that I know indicate they've missed or forgotten some key piece of information, I'll let them know.

Is this "metagaming"? Sure. Maybe. Does it avoid a huge number of really dumb things in games, that will lead to pissed off and frustrated players, and that may need retconning to fix? Yes. Absolutely. So totally worth doing IMO.

[gatorized]

The players are children


"the Seelie are good guys and destroying evil is what good guys do."

This is why you shouldn't roleplay as children. It basically requires you to play like a That Guy.

[Talakeal]

I will respond with a longer post tomorrow, but real quick:


And, as it turned out (and several of us posters predicted), the reason is because the players themselves misunderstood the information you had provided earlier, which you expected them to pass on in the scene. That was what was missing, and without it, they could not succeed.

Wait, what? When did this happen?!?!?

AFAICT they didn't misunderstand anything. They told me that they intentionally chose not to tell the Changelings about the attack on Muir Woods because they didn't think it was relevant.

That's less a misunderstanding than it is a lapse in judgement / a gambit that didn't pay off.

What am I missing here? What misunderstanding are you referring to?


The only "misunderstanding" that I am aware of is that they thought Cairn and Caer where the same word... but that does precisely nothing to explain why they wouldn't spill the beans about the attack, if anything it's the complete opposite!



If whatever the PCs try will work, that's a pure sandbox. As unappealing as a railroad in my view, but in any event that's pretty clearly not the case here.

If there is one unambiguously best path for the PCs to take in every situation...

that's a railroad. That's the definition of a railroad. This is the "nothing" that makes people "presuppose" a railroad: the apparent lack of understanding that there's any other way to run a game. Concealing from the PCs and players where the tracks are doesn't make it not a railroad. You now seem to be saying that you're offended that people are accusing you of railroading when you reduced the ambient light to a point where no one could possibly see the tracks so your players would stop saying such mean things, not realizing that "there are actual meaningful choices that aren't 'the right one' or 'one of the wrong ones'" is even a thing.

I think the underlying assumption you have here is that there is only one correct answer and every answer is wrong, and further than the GM will shoot down any answers that aren't the correct answer.

This isn't what I am saying.

I am saying that if the GM gives the players "an" answer, and the players are stuck (or just lazy) that is the answer they are going with. To me, that is depriving them of agency.

Just because I believe that most every scenario has a "best" answer, does not mean that other answers are invalid or that I am going to shoot them down as a GM.


In Gbaji's summary which I was responding to, he repeatedly added in "it was the only way" to the summary events in my game, which was not correct. It was A way, I never said it was the only way, and there were plenty of other routes, even if I considered some of them suboptimal for one reason or another.




Nothing. But you are the one who created a thread about what I can only assume is "something that went wrong" in your game. So clearly, the fact that the players were unable to figure out what to tell the Seelie was a problem.

It's a problem in that my players get frustrated if they lose and self-conscious if you point out their mistakes. Its no more "going wrong" than a monster taking out a PC with a lucky critical hit or a player flubbing a critical skill check.

This is hardly one of my gaming horror stories.

I am mostly just curious about why players sometimes won't answer an NPC's direct question. This is something I have seen many times in my games, but also in other games that I have been a player in, as well as APs I have listened to online. Its a weird phenomenon that I don't understand.




Sure. But you only wrote the one way to do it, right? And it looks like they tried to use other means, but they failed. So... maybe a railroad. Maybe not. Doesn't really matter. You wrote "this is a way they can do things" into your scenario. If you do that, then you need to not block that option from your players.


Not at all, no!

With the information the PCs currently had, that was, imo, by far the simplest and easiest way to get the Changelings involved, but I can think of a handfull of other methods off the top of my head that would have accomplished the same goal such as talking to the Selkie, Bribing someone, consulting an oracle, asking about the strange glade in the middle of the park, asking a changeling about the Nunnehei, asking someone knowledgeable about the changeling's history with the werewolves, they could have asked someone about fairy territories in the area and what they had an interested in defended, explaining to a few specific NPCs that their inaction would loved ones in danger, lying to the fey to get them involved, etc...

And that is just stuff they could have done at the party to bring the Seelie into opposition against the Werewolves using the resources they had on hand, a far cry from "resolving the scenario" as a whole!



I gave examples that are counter to your false assertions when you asked for proof that those assertions were false. Any counter example proves you wrong. When I gave counter examples, you then *invented false things about them* in order to still maintain your point. That is arguing in bad faith.

There's no point in talking to you, so I'm going to block you now.

Well... I guess I am blocked... so does anyone else want to point out the part of the post he is responding to where I said:


Obviously I am speaking in generalities here.

to NichG for me?

[Vahnavoi]

I am not even sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you saying that optimization is binary? You either have the mathematically optimal solution or you don't? And even if you are 99.99% efficient, you are still not "optimal" because optimal is 100% or bust?

You are using two different words and then getting confused over a very simple point:

Optimization - the process of searching for optimal solutions - can be applied to any game strategy. Nowhere is it guaranteed that this process has an achievable end. Some games (and game scenarios) can be solved for optimal solutions, others cannot. A perfect information game can be in either category, depending on game complexity.

Which means it's possible to have a perfect information roleplaying game scenario, such as a heist, where your players can optimize all they like to the extent of their abilities, and still play sub-optimally. Their strategies may still be functional, meaning it is possible for them to complete a scenario or win against another sub-optimal player, without ever getting close to optimal.

I wouldn't have to explain this to you, if you didn't insist on using words lazily pretty much on the justification "but other people use words lazily all the time".

[GloatingSwine]

I will respond with a longer post tomorrow, but real quick:



Wait, what? When did this happen?!?!?

AFAICT they didn't misunderstand anything. They told me that they intentionally chose not to tell the Changelings about the attack on Muir Woods because they didn't think it was relevant.


Why would they think it was relevant?

[Unoriginal]

AFAICT they didn't misunderstand anything. They told me that they intentionally chose not to tell the Changelings about the attack on Muir Woods because they didn't think it was relevant.

That's less a misunderstanding than it is a lapse in judgement / a gambit that didn't pay off.

What am I missing here? What misunderstanding are you referring to?

PCs were given Information A: "the werewolves' plan"

PCs were then asked Question 1: "what are the werewolves' planning?"

That they thought Information A was not relevant to Question 1 can only be described as a misunderstanding.



The alternative to a misunderstanding is that they actually had forgotten what A was and told you "we did that on purpose because we didn't think A mattered" to cushion the blow to their egos.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

PCs were given Information A: "the werewolves' plan"

PCs were then asked Question 1: "what are the werewolves' planning?"

That they thought Information A was not relevant to Question 1 can only be described as a misunderstanding.



The alternative to a misunderstanding is that they actually had forgotten what A was and told you "we did that on purpose because we didn't think A mattered" to cushion the blow to their egos.

I think there's a second alternative: the players are disassociated from the game. They don't care about the plot, they don't care about the werewolves or the fey, they don't want to parse the difference between 'caer' and 'caern', they just want to hit something with a stick.

[Unoriginal]

I think there's a second alternative: the players are disassociated from the game. They don't care about the plot, they don't care about the werewolves or the fey, they don't want to parse the difference between 'caer' and 'caern', they just want to hit something with a stick.

I don't disagree that it could be the reason why they forgot, but I don't think it's different from the "they had forgotten" alternative.

If they just wanted to hit something with a stick and remembered Information A, answering Question 1 would have been the quickest path.

[GloatingSwine]

PCs were given Information A: "the werewolves' plan"

PCs were then asked Question 1: "what are the werewolves' planning?"

That they thought Information A was not relevant to Question 1 can only be described as a misunderstanding.



The alternative to a misunderstanding is that they actually had forgotten what A was and told you "we did that on purpose because we didn't think A mattered" to cushion the blow to their egos.

There’s more than one reading of relevance here. The players know where the Werewolves are going but they don’t know why that information would be more motivational to the far than what they have already said.

And they have no reason to trust that it will solve their problem, the fae may simply use the information and fortify or remove themselves from the danger*. Because the players have a problem with where the werewolves are not where they are going. A response to where they are going doesn’t help remove them from where they are.

So without the knowledge that this is the secret password to win the conversation they [i]don’t [/]know it’s relevant and there are predictable downsides to giving it.

*A not unreasonable response, for most entities in direct combat with a werewolf your options boil down to updating your will and telling him your favourite colour so he can have the janitor scrape your remains into that colour bucket.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I don't disagree that it could be the reason why they forgot, but I don't think it's different from the "they had forgotten" alternative.

If they just wanted to hit something with a stick and remembered Information A, answering Question 1 would have been the quickest path.

I'm leaving open the possibility that they didn't forget, they just don't want to participate. I'm a bit confused about all of it, because what's being described seems like a social-heavy political game about building a coalition but the players are children who won't put their phones down (but also one of them is being trusted to play a character who always lies?). That seems like a mismatch of player to scenario, and some of the problems might be solved here if the plot was about venturing forth and kicking butt.

[Unoriginal]

There’s more than one reading of relevance here. The players know where the Werewolves are going but they don’t know why that information would be more motivational to the far than what they have already said.

And they have no reason to trust that it will solve their problem, the fae may simply use the information and fortify or remove themselves from the danger*. Because the players have a problem with where the werewolves are not where they are going. A response to where they are going doesn’t help remove them from where they are.

So without the knowledge that this is the secret password to win the conversation they [i]don’t [/]know it’s relevant and there are predictable downsides to giving it.

*A not unreasonable response, for most entities in direct combat with a werewolf your options boil down to updating your will and telling him your favourite colour so he can have the janitor scrape your remains into that colour bucket.

Regardless of how easy it was to misunderstand or why the players misunderstood the relevancy of the information, it was still a misunderstanding.

If your argument is that the GM should have been more clear, therefore it is normal the players misunderstood, that's not the point I'm addressing. I'm addressing OP's "What am I missing here? What misunderstanding are you referring to?" questions.

(I however think that there is a big difference between "we didn't think it was relevant to tell them what they asked for" and "we thought it would hinder our goal if we answered the question and told them they were in danger")


I'm leaving open the possibility that they didn't forget, they just don't want to participate.

Well they were disappointed and frustrated that asking the Seelie didn't work, and apparently insisted enough that several different Fae asked them "what are the werewolves planning?", so if they didn't want to participate but they still pursued that path in spite of it and wanted results from pursuing it.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm leaving open the possibility that they didn't forget, they just don't want to participate. I'm a bit confused about all of it, because what's being described seems like a social-heavy political game about building a coalition but the players are children who won't put their phones down (but also one of them is being trusted to play a character who always lies?). That seems like a mismatch of player to scenario, and some of the problems might be solved here if the plot was about venturing forth and kicking butt.

AFAICT the players are the usual inhabitants of Bizarro World that Talakeal plays with, with or without Bob. The characters are children one of whom to our knowledge is a Changeling.

And World of Darkness in all its forms is inherently a social heavy political game where the real threat is your own nature (in the case of Changelings being forced to live in accordance with it lest Banality overtake you and you fade into merely being a human).

(Though TBH not being children wouldn't help much in this situation, the biggest risk of their new "blow up the building" plan is that it will fail not because the unseelie can't commit acts of domestic terrorism but because if any of them are shifted they won't care they just had a building dropped on them because it's super hard to do lethal damage to them with anything but silver.)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

AFAICT the players are the usual inhabitants of Bizarro World that Talakeal plays with, with or without Bob. The characters are children one of whom to our knowledge is a Changeling.


Ah, got it. Objection withdrawn.

[Batcathat]

There’s more than one reading of relevance here. The players know where the Werewolves are going but they don’t know why that information would be more motivational to the far than what they have already said.

And they have no reason to trust that it will solve their problem, the fae may simply use the information and fortify or remove themselves from the danger*. Because the players have a problem with where the werewolves are not where they are going. A response to where they are going doesn’t help remove them from where they are.

So without the knowledge that this is the secret password to win the conversation they [i]don’t [/]know it’s relevant and there are predictable downsides to giving it.

Yes, there are reasons why they might not want to answer the question, but I really don't think that makes answering a direct question some sort of totally random password that they could never have thought of. So while the outcome isn't totally unexpected, I don't think it was in any way set in stone.

[Unoriginal]

Let's imagine the reverse situation for a bit:

You're playing a game where the PCs are a group capable of fighting werewolves, at least to enough of an extent that they'd be helpful in such a confrontation, and an handful of weak Fae shows up asking for your group's help against werewolves who are taking hostile actions against them.

Ask yourself:

-Would someone in your group ask if the Fae know what the werewolves are planning?

-If someone would ask them, how long would it take for your group to ask them?

-How would you react if the Fae keep dodging the question on what the werewolves are planning?

I dunno for you, but even my most trusting character would at least find that weird and try to figure what the Fae aren't telling and why.

[GloatingSwine]

Yes, there are reasons why they might not want to answer the question, but I really don't think that makes answering a direct question some sort of totally random password that they could never have thought of. So while the outcome isn't totally unexpected, I don't think it was in any way set in stone.

The password bit is that it's the consequence of how Talakeal ran the scene. If they didn't say that specific thing they didn't get help.

They had no currency or leverage to use in a bargain. They could say the password and open the door or go away.

[Unoriginal]

The password bit is that it's the consequence of how Talakeal ran the scene. If they didn't say that specific thing they didn't get help.

They had no currency or leverage to use in a bargain. They could say the password and open the door or go away.

They refused to allow any bargain before the topic of currency came up, and they didn't describe the situation in any way that would have made the Lords and Ladies agree it was also their problem. They then claimed they deliberately didn't share what they knew of the situation because they didn't think it was relevant.

It's not a password to answer the question "what you know about the plans of those you're asking us to fight?"

I'd agree if it was "say the right keyword to progress" situation if the only way to open the path was to mention the Lord's dead lover or the article 311b-2 of the Fay Law, and that nothing else would have worked no matter what was at stake, but "the werewolves we're asking you to attack are planning an attack on X using Y as an army" isn't the same.

Asking people for something without telling them what they'll use the something for makes it harder to convince them to do you this favor, and sometime "harder" means "went from 'possible if difficult' to 'impossible'".

[kyoryu]

I dunno. I don't think Talakeal has bizarro world players. I think they're just really bad at understanding the players' POV, and what they do and don't know.

Like, most of their stories are pretty similar:

1. Talakeal comes up with a scenario, that has a clearly Best Solution to it. (Talakeal seems to prefer puzzle-type scenarios, overall).
2. The players do not pick up on what to do and complain.
3. The players complain, and often call it 'railroading'
4. After discussion, it comes out that the information on what to do wasn't necessarily as super-clear as Talakeal seems to think it was

I don't think people are being "railroaded". I do feel like there's often a "correct" way of doing things, and everything seems to be failing. I think this is being incorrectly described as "railroading", but I don't think it's exactly the same thing. The complaint is really "nothing will work unless it's the thing Talakeal came up with, and it feels like a guessing game to figure that out".

Talakeal, what I'd recommend for you is:

1. Don't make "puzzle" scenarios - that is, scenarios where a key piece of information trivializes the scenario. They're tricky for anyone.
2. To avoid this, for any scenario like that, try to imagine three valid ways the scenario can be handled successfully. You don't need to get super-detailed on this.
3. Be willing to accept solutions other than the three you come up with.
4. Be quicker to give out more information. Using the information can be the interesting challenge rather than getting it.

In this case, it would have been trivial to get past this problem. Just have the seelie say "it's not our problem, our only problems are our holdings here and in the forest." Now the players know that the attack plans are relevant to them. And why not remind them of the attack, and ask them directly if they're going to mention it? They may have forgotten, or not thought it relevant.

"Oh, but the Seelie wouldn't just give away info!" Then, uh, why would the players?

[Darth Credence]

I don't think people are being "railroaded". I do feel like there's often a "correct" way of doing things, and everything seems to be failing. I think this is being incorrectly described as "railroading", but I don't think it's exactly the same thing. The complaint is really "nothing will work unless it's the thing Talakeal came up with, and it feels like a guessing game to figure that out".

How is this not a railroad? I'm unclear as to what makes something a railroad to you that is not covered by "Nothing will work unless it's the thing the DM came up with", regardless of whether or not it is a guessing game to figure that thing out.

[Batcathat]

The password bit is that it's the consequence of how Talakeal ran the scene. If they didn't say that specific thing they didn't get help.

They had no currency or leverage to use in a bargain. They could say the password and open the door or go away.

But you act as if the "password" is something completely unthinkable to bring up in conversation, while it's actually a piece of related information that they were specifically asked about. Again, it's not unreasonable to avoid revealing it for fear of it backfiring somehow, but that's not the only possible outcome.

Now, if the situation had been something like "mention the name of an NPC you met three adventures ago and has no apparent connection to this situation" then I would agree with you, but this seems very far from that.

It would also be problematic if mentioning that information was the only way to progress the story, but that is apparently not the case either.

[kyoryu]

How is this not a railroad? I'm unclear as to what makes something a railroad to you that is not covered by "Nothing will work unless it's the thing the DM came up with", regardless of whether or not it is a guessing game to figure that thing out.

1. Usually "railroad" is used in the larger context of a GM having a written-out plot that they are ensuring happens. I don't get the feeling this is what happens - it's just an encounter/problem with a single solution.

2. There's often contention around usage of the word that's just unnecessary here. I can argue about semantics of the word "railroad", or I can try to say "when they say this, I think this is what they're saying". The specific word used is less important than the meaning that the players are trying to express.

[KorvinStarmast]

The password bit is that it's the consequence of how Talakeal ran the scene. If they didn't say that specific thing they didn't get help.

They had no currency or leverage to use in a bargain. They could say the password and open the door or go away. I have played in a few games like that. The occasional puzzle like that can be OK but if that's the norm it gets old pretty fast.

1. Talakeal comes up with a scenario, that has a clearly Best Solution to it. (Talakeal seems to prefer puzzle-type scenarios, overall).
2. The players do not pick up on what to do and complain.
3. The players complain, and often call it 'railroading'
4. After discussion, it comes out that the information on what to do wasn't necessarily as super-clear as Talakeal seems to think it was Which takes us back to the three clue rule, or, when that fails, the five clue rule. :smallcool:


1. Don't make "puzzle" scenarios - that is, scenarios where a key piece of information trivializes the scenario. They're tricky for anyone.
2. To avoid this, for any scenario like that, try to imagine three valid ways the scenario can be handled successfully. You don't need to get super-detailed on this.
3. Be willing to accept solutions other than the three you come up with.
4. Be quicker to give out more information. Using the information can be the interesting challenge rather than getting it. Great minds think alike. :smallcool:

[GloatingSwine]

They refused to allow any bargain before the topic of currency came up, and they didn't describe the situation in any way that would have made the Lords and Ladies agree it was also their problem. They then claimed they deliberately didn't share what they knew of the situation because they didn't think it was relevant.


But then they're also playing as children, who as far as I can tell all but one of which are normal baseline humans (or are at least unaware of any special heritage at this point).

They can't bargain. They have pocket lint and string, both in the physical and metaphysical senses.


But you act as if the "password" is something completely unthinkable to bring up in conversation, while it's actually a piece of related information that they were specifically asked about. Again, it's not unreasonable to avoid revealing it for fear of it backfiring somehow, but that's not the only possible outcome.

It's something that is not naturally relevant to the players' goal, because they have been given no reason to recognise the significance of it. So the only way they can speak the password is to infodump literally everything. But in that case they're not speaking with intention, they're not having an idea and following through on it, they're just babbling until they get lucky.

Remember, their problem is where the werewolves are not where they are going. They need the werewolves to be attacked where they are, not defended against where they are going.

[Batcathat]

It's something that is not naturally relevant to the players' goal, because they have been given no reason to recognise the significance of it. So the only way they can speak the password is to infodump literally everything. But in that case they're not speaking with intention, they're not having an idea and following through on it, they're just babbling until they get lucky.

Remember, their problem is where the werewolves are not where they are going. They need the werewolves to be attacked where they are, not defended against where they are going.

It's part of the situation that they want help with and part of what the people they're talking to are asking about, that seems relevant enough to me. Can they know for sure that this particular fact will be useful? No, but that's the case in a lot of discussion both in games and in reality. If you're trying to convince someone you usually don't know ahead of time exactly what it will take to succeed.

[Unoriginal]

But then they're also playing as children, who as far as I can tell all but one of which are normal baseline humans (or are at least unaware of any special heritage at this point).

They can't bargain. They have pocket lint and string, both in the physical and metaphysical senses.

This assertion does not match the evidences.

1) Fey beings are well known for bargaining with children/about children or wanting children/children's things, be it in folklore, more recent fictions, or even the very RPG that is the topic of the thread.

2) At least one of the PCs has magic powers and know about it, using said powers to force people into oaths and the like.

3) OP said the players shut down the attempts at bargaining on purpose, meaning they knew they could have tried it but didn't want to pay the piper.

Which is fair, but shows that they *could* have put something on the table.



It's something that is not naturally relevant to the players' goal, because they have been given no reason to recognise the significance of it. So the only way they can speak the password is to infodump literally everything. But in that case they're not speaking with intention, they're not having an idea and following through on it, they're just babbling until they get lucky.

Remember, their problem is where the werewolves are not where they are going. They need the werewolves to be attacked where they are, not defended against where they are going.

Regardless of how useful to the PCs the information would have been, telling the tactical situation to potential allies you're asking for tactical support isn't some outlandishly complicated puzzle or password you require divine inspiration to figure out.

It's kind of what they need to know to know if they can help.

[GloatingSwine]

It's part of the situation that they want help with and part of what the people they're talking to are asking about, that seems relevant enough to me. Can they know for sure that this particular fact will be useful? No, but that's the case in a lot of discussion both in games and in reality. If you're trying to convince someone you usually don't know ahead of time exactly what it will take to succeed.

They can’t know it’s useful, they can predict it’s counterproductive, and one of them who might be the only one with any standing to speak has to make a tricky check to tell the whole story true. (Needs more 8+ than 1s on D10 on their willpower pool).

This deal gets worse the more you think about it.

[kyoryu]

Regardless of how useful to the PCs the information would have been, telling the tactical situation to potential allies you're asking for tactical support isn't some outlandishly complicated puzzle or password you require divine inspiration to figure out.

No, I don't think anyone is saying that.

What they're saying is that there's a magic phrase (even if reasonably easily deduced - but keep in mind we don't know all of what the players know here) that will solve the problem, and not using it will prevent the problem from being solved.


It's kind of what they need to know to know if they can help.

It's really not. The specifics of the attack really have nothing to do with the aid that is being asked. Helping at the apartment doesn't have anything to do with where the eventual attack will be, besides motivation.

I'd also add that I have a general impression (meaning: I'd have a hard time providing evidence) that Talakeal seems to be the kind of GM that punishes missteps or "stupid ideas" pretty quickly. IOW, there might be a reason to be cagey with information. I can envision a similar scenario where the Seelie were less aligned with the players, where giving them the info of where the attack was would lead to Bad Things.

[Batcathat]

They can’t know it’s useful, they can predict it’s counterproductive, and one of them who might be the only one with any standing to speak has to make a tricky check to tell the whole story true. (Needs more 8+ than 1s on D10 on their willpower pool).

This deal gets worse the more you think about it.

There are reasons it might be counter-productive, there are reasons it might be productive (again, it's not some random fact, it's information about the situation they're asking for help with) and considering their actual approach was failing, trying something potential risky isn't exactly out there.

I'm not saying that they necessarily should have thought of it, I'm just disagreeing with your assessment that revealing information about the situation being discussed and/or answering questions about it is the equivalent of brute-forcing a password.

But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[Talakeal]

Between this, the fact that you get blamed for going too hard and too easy wit no middle ground, the fact that the one player comfortable with talking in-character goes into self-depreciating tirades when he doesn't figure out something, and the new player who you describes as trying to gaslight you...

Have you considered the idea that the relationship between you and those players is just toxic and you shouldn't play with them?

Because what you have here is neither a good gaming situation nor a good relationship.

Constantly.

The thing is, I am legitimately more happy when I have a weekly gaming group than when am not gaming, and every attempt to find a new gaming group has either petered out quickly or been even worse than my normal group. Check out some of my posts from 2015-2017 if you want proof of that.


Great, so let's use that as an example. As it happens, I'm currently replaying Fallout 2. I've played through it many times since it came out and while I can't claim perfect knowledge, it's quite vast (and probably a lot more detailed than what most GMs could come up with if asked to explain everything that's going on, I would guess). By your logic, that should make the game basically a railroad, but it very much ain't. Because I play a different character, because I like trying different things, because I'm a different person and probably a few other reasons, but the short version is that just because I know the game, the setting and the plot very well doesn't make it any more railroady than the first time I played it, since I still have as many (or as few, depending on how you view it) options as if I didn't know the first thing about it.

I know Fallout 2 probably better than any other game.

If you are still finding the game challenging on multiple playthroughs, I would suggest you are putting in artificial limitations on yourself. The big one is, when the game starts, do you go straight for Navarro and grab the advanced power armor? Because if you do, you are essentially invincible for atleast the first half of the game and will have a major leg up for the rest.

If you don't, I would say you are intentionally playing sub-optimally and making the game harder for yourself for metagame reasons rather than IC ones. Which is why I said that a game where failures and challenges are self imposed by the players is more like a collaborative story game than a traditional RPG.


Plus, apparently, everyone has their phone out all the time. Again in my experience (which is all I have to go on!) people don't pull their phones out at the table unless they're bored enough or pissed off enough to disassociate. Someone looking at their phone for longer than it takes to read a text is a sign to me that I need to move things along, someone's bored or feels left out.

If people aren't absorbing the information, aren't engaging with the world, aren't chatting and bantering with each other and are looking at their phones too much to pay attention -- is anyone having any fun?

IMO most people are addicted to their phone these days. It's not just gaming, most people look at their phones constantly regardless of activity. Heck, it's not just kids either, my 84 year old father can't watch a TV show or even hold a conversation for more than a few minutes without pulling out his phone and zoning out.


This is a failure of imagination on your part. You have an excessively narrow view of what's possible in an extremely open-ended medium. Heists do have puzzle elements for sure, but you're literally saying there are 'puzzle games' and 'puzzles are not games' in the same breath.

And then I immediately went on to explain why a puzzle game is a hybrid of a puzzle and a game in the same "breath".

BTW, I did not come up with this distinction. For example, if you google "Difference between a puzzle and a game" you get the following:

"A single-player activity with a goal and legal moves is a game, as opposed to a puzzle, if it also possesses a clear losing condition; that is, a game-state under which the goal can no longer be achieved. So sudoku is a puzzle but not a game - you can't lose sudoku, only give up before solving it."


Or, you know, you could also just not have a key hidden under a fake rock in the garden. You're the one making the scenario fragile to information here with that choice. It doesn't mean its never okay to have a key under the rock, but when all situations start to be like that then again you're sort of excluding opportunities for truly meaningful decisions from the bulk of your gameplay, and you'll ultimately have an overall story structure that reflects less of the characters and the players are more of your own preconceptions about how things should be resolved.

The goal of an RPG imo is to simulate a fictional world. In a fictional world, there are optimal ways to do things. For example, in real life how often do people decide to break into their own homes rather than lose a key?

The thing is, in character, the players don't know there is a key under the rock unless they do something to learn that information; say making a search check or casting a divination spell or spying on the location. These are gameplay elements that may or may not be easier than picking the lock, kicking the door down, teleporting past, bluffing your way inside, etc.

Its only in a hypothetical "perfect information" game where such things become a problem. But at the point where the PCs always know the right path for no in character reason, you have already thrown the idea of playing a role and immersion by the wayside.


Adjust the level accordingly then until its a fair fight.

As I have said at least twice before; yes, you can make a scenario where it is still a challenge with perfect knowledge. But such scenarios are either going to be A: Virtually impossible for someone going in blind, and / or B: not at all resemble a traditional RPG adventure.

I would say that throwing a party of level ~10 characters into a pit with an angry Balor is both.



And there's always finite time to learn your characters' abilities. There's always finite time to work out a plan of action. The challenge in such a scenario is how quickly and accurately you can navigate the space of possibilities and strategies, not 'oh no I used Fireball but its immune'.

Sure. But "finite" is not the same as giving them ten minutes to learn about a party of four sixteenth level characters, balors, and prep for the fight. It's not even enough time to read all of your spells!


And yet someone else at the table may realize 'oh wait, if the Cleric casts Silence on a pebble or something then the Balor might move, or if they put it on the Balor itself then SR and saves is an issue and they might burn their action for nothing. Instead, maybe we scatter and maintain range that round - sure one person might be Dazed, but if the Balor is spending their action in exchange for one of ours, that's not so bad - that burns down the duration on the Implosion it cast on round 1 as well. Or, what if we ready to interrupt with an attack so that way we might cancel the Silence *and* get some damage dealt as part of the deal?'

Blasphemy doesn't affect you if you can't hear the caster. The idea is that the cleric casts silence on himself, the rest of the party does what they want to do with their turn, and then move into the area of silence so that the balor wastes its turn casting a blasphemy that does nothing because none of its foes can hear it. Thus the entire party gets a free round for the cost of a single second level spell slot on the part of the cleric.



You are not a perfect strategist, your 'GM's path' is not going to be the best play. In the case where the players have all the information about the Balor and what it will do, your own advice isn't actually adding anything unless you're just that much smarter than all your players.

It's not about smarts, it's about perfect knowledge. The GM already knows where all the secrets are, what the solutions are to the puzzles, the off switches for the traps, the hidden doors and treasures, NPCs motivations, the solution to every mystery, the answer to every riddle.

Likewise, if your opponent is going to tell you all of their moves in advance, it doesn't really take a tactical genius to simply preemptively defend against said move.

And no, it's unlikely the GM has a "perfect" strategy, but for the vast, vast, majority of challenges they can use their superior knowledge to come up with a plan that has zero chance of failure.



What is a railroad is if you do not allow all the "kick the door down, pick the lock, search for a key, teleport, turn incorporal, shrink down and crawl under the crack, try and bluff someone into letting them in, create a diversion and force the guards inside to come out, tunnel through the wall, blow the wall down, dig under the wall, etc. etc. etc." solutions to work just because the rock and key exist / that's the solution you want them to use.

I 100% agree.

For some reason people assume that just because I have an "optimal" solution in mind that means I will shoot down all other solutions, or am somehow arrogant enough to believe that nobody could possibly come up with a better solution when that is virtually never the case.


b) Unless the players explicitly asked for it, I hate the idea of Talakeal running yet another game involving the PCs being low-to-no-Agency Children (even if last time it was less factual and more theme ala "Goonies" iirc).

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, Talakeal, but I thought your players really didn't enjoy the "ask NPCs for help" minigame - if that's the case, that might also factor into this problem.

Yeah. I want to play Exalted next, so I am running a short-term game of Innocents to let them get used to the system before piling on all sorts of crazy powers.


It's funny, I was just thinking about that game, and how in that game I provided them three clear solutions to the problem and they rejected all of them for various reasons, and how much of the advice in this thread still wouldn't work.


And then about how they insisted I was railroading them by telling them that griffons in my world were too small to ride despite the fact that their idea to have a party with zero skill in riding or animal handling ride away on the backs of a pride of untrained and unfamiliar griffons wouldn't have worked even if griffons were the size of a 747.


Indeed.

Railroading is making the players' choices not matter, either by not letting them choose and just telling them what they're doing to get to a predetermined outcome, or by pretending they can choose and then telling them what they're doing to the predetermined outcome anyway.

Reminding a player there is another option or asking them why they're not using an option the characters would remember they have is not railroading in any way, shape or form, so long as the players are free to ignore this option if they want to.

Presenting a situation with only one solution isn't inherently railroading (ex: if the MacGuffin is a box that can only be opened by using a Wish), but it makes it a pretty linear situation until you add decision points (ex: the box may only be open via a Wish, but there are many ways to seek one, or decide the box is best left unopen, or attempt to trick the bad guys that you've opened it with a replica, etc).


The players are free to ignore it, but choosing to fail is a really odd choice that seems out of place in an RPG. I am not sure many players would turn down a winning solution for any reason, and I think those who would are going to face some serious peer pressure from the rest of the party to just do what the GM tells them and keep the game moving / keep the party winning.

You also won't get the story going in unexpected ways without failure. They say "necessity is the mother of invention" and I agree. When we started the game, I would have foreseen an alliance of fey ambushing the werewolves, I could not have foreseen goblin terrorists blowing up buildings.

(Although the way things are going, I think they are probably going to decide to blow up a bridge rather than the whole building as was their initial plan, but we shall see next week!).


If there is one unambiguously best path for the PCs to take in every situation...

that's a railroad. That's the definition of a railroad. This is the "nothing" that makes people "presuppose" a railroad: the apparent lack of understanding that there's any other way to run a game. Concealing from the PCs and players where the tracks are doesn't make it not a railroad. You now seem to be saying that you're offended that people are accusing you of railroading when you reduced the ambient light to a point where no one could possibly see the tracks so your players would stop saying such mean things, not realizing that "there are actual meaningful choices that aren't 'the right one' or 'one of the wrong ones'" is even a thing.

Maybe we just have a fundamentally different view of the world.

I am of the opinion that, given perfect knowledge, we could calculate the best way to achieve any goal.

Like, for example, say the players are asking the duke for a favor. I think about the duke's personality and motivation, and base the DC on the PC's approach.

Flattery is DC 15, Threatening him is DC 20, Bribing him is DC 25, and reminding him that he owes you one is DC 30,etc.



If the players then think about the duke's personality and motivation, and then decide on an approach based on that, this seems like a game, not a railroad, even if one DC is lower than the others. Especially when the party can do things to gain more information about the situation.


Now, what would be a railroad is if the duke shot down every single request that didn't appeal to what his father would do in his situation (cough Dragons of Dreams, cough).


I mean, just logically, some approach has to be the easiest. This is an RPG, it isn't calvin ball. If you are hungry, you eat, you don't throw your food on the floor and yodel hopping a bird drops sustenance down your throat.


In this particular case the PCs could have done a lot of things to form an alliance with the Seelie, but seeing as how in the previous scene they had just learned a clue that guarantees it, it was easiest to just repeat the information. Just like if they were looking to get into a locked room and had just found the key, it just makes logical sense that it would be easier to unlock the door than it would be to break in.


I wouldn't have to explain this to you, if you didn't insist on using words lazily pretty much on the justification "but other people use words lazily all the time".

Ok then.

Yes. People use words imprecisely all the time. On the other hand, it is highly unusual (and more than a little rude) to go off on them for it, tell them they need to delete the word from their vocabulary, and derail a thread with pedantic discussions over it.


Why would they think it was relevant?

There could be a thousand reasons why it was relevant.

Neither the PCs nor the Seelie knew why it was relevant, or indeed if it was relevant at all. The only way to find out is to share information. The Seelie were willing to ask, the PCs were not willing to answer, so no exchange of information occurred, and everyone remained in the dark.


You know, now that I think about it, that almost makes the PCs accomplices. I can't imagine things would go well for you in real life if you went to the police telling them you knew about criminal activity but refused to actually share any of the details.


PCs were given Information A: "the werewolves' plan"

PCs were then asked Question 1: "what are the werewolves' planning?"

That they thought Information A was not relevant to Question 1 can only be described as a misunderstanding.

I don't see it as a misunderstanding, I see it as a tactical mistake.

If the players consciously choose not to pursue something because they don't think it is worth their time, or think it will harm them, that is their choice to make. IMO the GM then breaking character and telling them otherwise is violating their agency.


The alternative to a misunderstanding is that they actually had forgotten what A was and told you "we did that on purpose because we didn't think A mattered" to cushion the blow to their egos.

That is always a risk.


The password bit is that it's the consequence of how Talakeal ran the scene. If they didn't say that specific thing they didn't get help.

They had no currency or leverage to use in a bargain. They could say the password and open the door or go away.

As I said in my last post, there were many things they could have done to secure Seelie help. This was just the easiest and most direct.

But even so, let's say it was a literal password. Reciting a password that you just learned when directly prompted isn't a challenge.


Like, if want entrance into the back-alley gambling ring, and I am told that the password is "Rutabaga", and then when I knock on the door I am asked for a password, it doesn't exactly take some herculean leap of logic to respond "Rutabaga".


I dunno. I don't think Talakeal has bizarro world players. I think they're just really bad at understanding the players' POV, and what they do and don't know.

Like, most of their stories are pretty similar:

1. Talakeal comes up with a scenario, that has a clearly Best Solution to it. (Talakeal seems to prefer puzzle-type scenarios, overall).
2. The players do not pick up on what to do and complain.
3. The players complain, and often call it 'railroading'
4. After discussion, it comes out that the information on what to do wasn't necessarily as super-clear as Talakeal seems to think it was

I don't think people are being "railroaded". I do feel like there's often a "correct" way of doing things, and everything seems to be failing. I think this is being incorrectly described as "railroading", but I don't think it's exactly the same thing. The complaint is really "nothing will work unless it's the thing Talakeal came up with, and it feels like a guessing game to figure that out".

Talakeal, what I'd recommend for you is:

1. Don't make "puzzle" scenarios - that is, scenarios where a key piece of information trivializes the scenario. They're tricky for anyone.
2. To avoid this, for any scenario like that, try to imagine three valid ways the scenario can be handled successfully. You don't need to get super-detailed on this.
3. Be willing to accept solutions other than the three you come up with.
4. Be quicker to give out more information. Using the information can be the interesting challenge rather than getting it.

In this case, it would have been trivial to get past this problem. Just have the seelie say "it's not our problem, our only problems are our holdings here and in the forest." Now the players know that the attack plans are relevant to them. And why not remind them of the attack, and ask them directly if they're going to mention it? They may have forgotten, or not thought it relevant.

"Oh, but the Seelie wouldn't just give away info!" Then, uh, why would the players?

I actually hate puzzles. The problem is, things I consider common sense, other people consider puzzles.

For example, giving an honest answer when asked a direct question is not a puzzle to me, it is just responding to the situation in the normal manner.

Likewise, what I see as "obstacles" my players see as "puzzles".

For example, my players view a trap or a locked door as a puzzle. I do not. There are dozens of ways to bypass them.

I have had some variant of the following scenario play out a thousand times:

GM: You approach a door.
PC: I open it.
GM: It's locked.
PC: I go to break it down.
GM: Ok, give me a strength test DC 20.
PC: I rolled a 14.
GM: It doesn't budge, you aren't strong enough to force it open.
PC: Well, then I guess we are stuck. Anyone got any ideas?
Other PCs: "Huh? What? No." [go back to looking at their phones]
GM: C'mon guys, surely you can think of something?
PC: Nope. All out of ideas.
-ten minutes pass-
GM: Ok guys, seriously, what the heck?
PC: Don't blame us! You are the one who designed an impossible scenario!
GM: Impossible? Dude, just cast knock on the door!
PC: Well, I didn't think of it. I am sorry I can't read your mind and come up with the one and only solution to your puzzle!
GM: One and only solution? Guys... pick the lock. Teleport past it. Tunnel under it. Blow it up. Cast stone shape on the wall. Search for a key. Go around back and climb in through the window. Turn incorporeal. Create a diversion to bluff the guard into opening it. Knock on the door and ask nicely to be let in!
PC: Ok, I see what this is. You just want to lord your superiority over us and rub our noses in how stupid we are! Got it!


For whatever reason, the players take personal offense if their first approach doesn't work, and kind of shut down. I don't know if its an ego thing, or a laziness thing, or what, but it always happens.

In this case, one of the PCs tried to convince the Sidhe to storm the building because the formorians were there, flubbed her persuasion role, and then just kind of wandered around aimlessly. I decided to try and help them out by having half a dozen NPCs ask what the fomorians were planning so that they could point the PCs to the Baron who is duty bound to protect Muir Woods, but no dice, they would not share any information.


2. To avoid this, for any scenario like that, try to imagine three valid ways the scenario can be handled successfully. You don't need to get super-detailed on this.
3. Be willing to accept solutions other than the three you come up with.

It's funny, in the past I have been given the complete opposite advice, and told that the only way to avoid puzzles is to never think up a solution to any obstacle. What I have called "Zen GMing" in the past.

I just can't do it though, I am too analytical, I am incapable of looking at an obstacle and not thinking of ways in which it might be resolved.


3. Be willing to accept solutions other than the three you come up with.

This is a given. This is the core of railroading, and something I avoid like a plague.

For some reason, most people assume that I am doing this despite every insistence that I am not.


In this case, it would have been trivial to get past this problem. Just have the seelie say "it's not our problem, our only problems are our holdings here and in the forest." Now the players know that the attack plans are relevant to them.

While I didn't say exactly that, because it isn't true (they have many holdings). I actually did list out all of their holdings in the area, one of which was Caer Redwood in Muir Woods, which I hoped would be enough for the players to volunteer the information that it was under attack, but no dice. After the game, this is because they told me they thought Caer and Cairn were the same thing... which doesn't explain anything, it actually makes it ten times weirder that they didn't mention that the Cairn was going to be attacked.

[Batcathat]

I know Fallout 2 probably better than any other game.

If you are still finding the game challenging on multiple playthroughs, I would suggest you are putting in artificial limitations on yourself. The big one is, when the game starts, do you go straight for Navarro and grab the advanced power armor? Because if you do, you are essentially invincible for atleast the first half of the game and will have a major leg up for the rest.

If you don't, I would say you are intentionally playing sub-optimally and making the game harder for yourself for metagame reasons rather than IC ones. Which is why I said that a game where failures and challenges are self imposed by the players is more like a collaborative story game than a traditional RPG.

I didn't say I found it as challenging as the first time, I said it wasn't any more of a railroad than the first time, since the options remain the same whether I know about them or not.

Also, while I know where I could pick up some power armor, nice weapons and a car, my character doesn't, so not doing all of that in the first hour seems very much like a in-character decision. Because I'm, y'know, playing a role in the role-playing game.

(That said, when I played the original Fallout when I was younger, my games usually started by heading straight for the Glow, barely surviving it and then immediately joining the Brotherhood, so I suppose I used to play closer to your philosophy).

But I suppose we might also disagree on exactly what constitutes "artificial limitations". For example, I envisioned my current character in Fallout 2 as a village hunter so I picked Melee weapons, Outdoorsman and Sneaking as my tagged skills. Of course, I know that Melee is probably the worst weapons class and that the usefulness of both Outdoorsman and Sneaking is limited and situational at best, so in that sense I definitively played sub-optimally, but playing different roles is one of the points of RPGs to me.

[Quertus]

Let's imagine the reverse situation for a bit:

You're playing a game where the PCs are a group capable of fighting werewolves, at least to enough of an extent that they'd be helpful in such a confrontation, and an handful of weak Fae shows up asking for your group's help against werewolves who are taking hostile actions against them.

Ask yourself:

-Would someone in your group ask if the Fae know what the werewolves are planning?

Probably not. That's where this breaks down, for me.

EDIT: For example, if I lived in the DC Universe, went up to Superman, and told him that some Evil Aliens (TM) were doing some Invasion of the Body Snatchers stuff to some people in my apartment building... and he responded by asking me, "OK, but do you know what they're planning?" (whether or not he led with, "OK, that's not my problem.")? I'd be feeling kinda suss wrt whether he wasn't compromised, tbh. That's just... not the kinda question that logically flows here, y'know?


"Oh, but the Seelie wouldn't just give away info!" Then, uh, why would the players?

Thanks for the laugh! :smallbiggrin:

Although I mostly agree, and even (I think - darn senility) listed off lots of reasons PCs in that scenario might keep that card close to the chest, I actually feel that (ignoring fey and magic and all those other things) someone with an area they're interested in defending, someone with such a tactical vulnerability, might have slightly stronger reason not to mention that, than someone not mentioning a mutual foe's vulnerability.

But, more generally, yeah, if the Fey can have reasons to not disclose information, then the PCs can, too.


despite the fact that their idea to have a party with zero skill in riding or animal handling ride away on the backs of a pride of untrained and unfamiliar griffons wouldn't have worked even if griffons were the size of a 747.

I had blissfully forgotten that detail. Yeah, I think your players would appreciate a GM who uses more "rule of cool" more than you or I would be likely to give them.

[gbaji]

PCs were given Information A: "the werewolves' plan"

PCs were then asked Question 1: "what are the werewolves' planning?"

That they thought Information A was not relevant to Question 1 can only be described as a misunderstanding.



The alternative to a misunderstanding is that they actually had forgotten what A was and told you "we did that on purpose because we didn't think A mattered" to cushion the blow to their egos.

Right. And in either case, the GM stepping out of NPC character for a moment, putting on their GM hat and asking the players "Are you guys itentionally choosing to avoid telling the Seelie about the planned attack on the woods", would have resolved the problem.


There’s more than one reading of relevance here. The players know where the Werewolves are going but they don’t know why that information would be more motivational to the far than what they have already said.

And they have no reason to trust that it will solve their problem, the fae may simply use the information and fortify or remove themselves from the danger*. Because the players have a problem with where the werewolves are not where they are going. A response to where they are going doesn’t help remove them from where they are.

So without the knowledge that this is the secret password to win the conversation they don’t [/]know it’s relevant and there are predictable downsides to giving it.

Sure. Again though, this possibility is going to appear identical to "the players forgot or don't understand the potential significance of the attack on the woods".

Which is why the GM should stop the scene and have an OOC conversation with the players when this sort of things happens. There is zero harm to asking the players why they are not telling the NPCs about the attack. It absolutely could be because they don't think telling the NPCs will get them the help they want, and might even cause the NPCs to do something they don't want. But it could also be "what attack? We forgot all about that"

I will say that a general trend I've observed in Talakael's games is that the players don't trust him to not use their table talk and planning against them. Whether fairly or not, this is a huge problem precisely because it means that the players are being closed lipped about stuff like this, so when there is any situation where there's even a possibility of miscommunciation or confusion, it will be that much worse since no one's speaking openly and plainly about what they are doing and why.

I mentioned at the beginning of this thread that this sort of thing is absolutely alien to my gaming table. My players will sit there and have a 30 minute conversation at the table right in front of me, hashing out where they are going, why they are going there, what they hope to accomplish, what information they are going to share, what information they're going to keep secret, who they're trying to get information/help from, who they want to avoid, etc. This entire thing would be discussed before we ever start the scene. Which means that when I'm running the scene, I pretty much know exactly what to expect, and have a sense of what in-character interactions can be tossed in as fluff, which ones the players are really interested in, what additional information I can toss in which might pique their interests (or even send them off on another tangent/track), and so forth.

This makes it vastly easier to play out those kinds of RP scenes. So yeah. Not doing this is just strange to me.


I'm leaving open the possibility that they didn't forget, they just don't want to participate. I'm a bit confused about all of it, because what's being described seems like a social-heavy political game about building a coalition but the players are children who won't put their phones down (but also one of them is being trusted to play a character who always lies?). That seems like a mismatch of player to scenario, and some of the problems might be solved here if the plot was about venturing forth and kicking butt.

Eh. Possible. But if that was the case, then the described frustration by the players in the OP should not have occurred:


Afterward, the players walked away empty handed, and then got frustrated OOC that none of the Changelings were helpful.

The players clearly did want to get the NPCs to help them. They were frustrated that they were not able to do so. Now, it's possible that they "didn't want to participate" in the dramatic RP scene itself, and just wanted the information. But again, the same answer applies. If they just want to treat this as "do this thing and get that thing back", and they're fumbling around trying to figure out how to "do this thing", then we're still back to the same solution: Remind them what "things" they have which might get them what they want.


1. Usually "railroad" is used in the larger context of a GM having a written-out plot that they are ensuring happens. I don't get the feeling this is what happens - it's just an encounter/problem with a single solution.

2. There's often contention around usage of the word that's just unnecessary here. I can argue about semantics of the word "railroad", or I can try to say "when they say this, I think this is what they're saying". The specific word used is less important than the meaning that the players are trying to express.

I agree that the term can be used in an overly broad way. Unfortunately, sometimes, we're just repeating the terminology used previously and in context. Even if it's not strictly correct.

But yeah. As I pointed out earlier, I don't feel that it's necessariliy a "railroad" to have a specific single "thing you have to do here, to get the result you want". Otherwise, we'd be stuck declaring every door that must be opened to get to the room beyond a "railroad". Which... is silly. In this case, they needed to tell the Seelie something which would make them want to assist in defeating the evil werewolves. While we could certainly argue that Talakeal only gave them one piece of information which would accomplish that exact thing at that exact time, we can also say that from a broader perspective there were other ways to deal with the werewolves as well. So... depends on how much we're zeroing in on the specifics.

I don't at all find the occasional "NPC will only help you if you do <specific thing for him>" to automatically be a railroad. I will say (as I suggested in my earlier post) that this does constitute a "short length of track". But... I don't think that's a problem in the sense that we normally talk about when discussing railroads. And hey, there's nothing to say that the PCs could not find some way to get the NPC to help via some other "out of the box" solution, right? It's just that the "easy way that the GM has provided for use" is the one being presented to them. They may choose to use it. Or not. But it's probably a good idea, if the players are fumbling around, to remind them of the "easy way" that you previously told them about.


It's something that is not naturally relevant to the players' goal, because they have been given no reason to recognise the significance of it. So the only way they can speak the password is to infodump [i]literally everything. But in that case they're not speaking with intention, they're not having an idea and following through on it, they're just babbling until they get lucky.

Right. But that's a bit of metainfo as well. Did the GM adequately explain the dynamics of the game setting to the players (and do they remember them)? Unless the players have been playing in this specific setting for some time, they may not really understand what information may or may not be relevant. How well versed are they in the intricacies of the various factions, to suspect that "if the werewolves are planning an attack on Muir Woods, one of the other fae factions may very well be threatened by that, and we can use that to get them to help us"?

Which, again, is maybe something the GM could step out of character for a short bit and clarify for the players.

My main game has been running for a very very long time, and the players are (should be!) very familar with the details of it. But despite this, whenever I run a scenario where there is some political/social intereactions with different groups, factions, or kingdoms, I will still put on my GM hat and clarify the relevant bits for the players (based, of course, on what the PCs know, and sometimes maybe using a lore roll to guide me). So if they find themselves in Baron A's lands, in Kingdom B, dealing with Faction C, I'll tell them what they know about the interactions of all three of those things, plus their own kingdom's position on things, and perhaps their own groups history with things as well ("the leader of Faction C was that guy who helped you find the <whatever> back in the day, and is a friend, and he's currently engaged in undermining the ruler of Kingdom B, and is secretly receiving assistance from Baron A. Kingdom B's current ruler is the guy who launched that sneak attack on the borders of our own kingdom 10 years back, and also ran that secret program to turn his own political prisoners into chaos monsters and use them as canon fodder in a border skirmish, and is currently engaged in negotiations with the Black Fang cult to conduct assassination attempts on your own friends and alies, but you guys set that back a bit when you curb stomped their first attempt to set up a temple in that old abandoned guard tower near their capitol.")

I find that this sort of exposition also really helps things along. Why on earth keep details that the PCs should know secret from them, or rely on the players to remember them (I don't know about you, but I have a whole other life to lead as myself when I'm not playing RPGs)? Just.... tell the players what they need to know if it's something their characters know and is relevant to the adventure they are on. It'll save everyone a lot of time and trouble.


Remember, their problem is where the werewolves are not where they are going. They need the werewolves to be attacked where they are, not defended against where they are going.

"The best defense is a good offense" (from "Mel, the cook on Alice" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajEOZ4tBqjQ), and maybe some other guy too). It's not unreasonable to assume that if a faction of fae may want to prevent the werewolves from attacking their holdings in the woods, knowing this attack is being planned and knowing where the werewolves who are planning it are recruiting for this attack (ie: the tenement building the PCs care about), would seem to be a really really great thing to have. And it's also reasonable to expect that said faction of fae would rather stop the werewolves from transforming people into soldiers to fight in that battle before hand, then just wait for the attack.


But again. The GM can't know for sure why the players are not mentioning this if he doesn't ask. So.... ask.

I just can't see how you can run a successful RPG game with so little open communication going on. This would appear to be a huge problem. Hence why pretty much all of my posts on this topic have been about opening up that communication.

There are certainly some games where the players may want to keep things close to the vest. But if that is actually causing problems in the game, then it's time to open things up a bit. And if you reach a point where you (the GM) can't figure out why the players are not sharing/using some information they have (when they probably should), then you really should just freaking ask. It's not that hard to do.

EDIT: Adding this bit:


The goal of an RPG imo is to simulate a fictional world. In a fictional world, there are optimal ways to do things. For example, in real life how often do people decide to break into their own homes rather than lose a key?

The thing is, in character, the players don't know there is a key under the rock unless they do something to learn that information; say making a search check or casting a divination spell or spying on the location. These are gameplay elements that may or may not be easier than picking the lock, kicking the door down, teleporting past, bluffing your way inside, etc.

But to follow the analogy to the scenario in the OP: The players do know about the key under the rock (they knew about the planned attack on the wods, right?). Now, if the PCs get to the house, and instead of using the key under the rock, decide to pick the lock, or break in through a window, as the GM you might just think "huh. Ok. They must have some reason for not wanting to just use the key". There's potentially some number of reasons for this. Maybe they don't trust the key (it could be a setup, a trap, it's covered in contact poison, whatever). Maybe they want to try picking the lock for some reason. Or they think someone is watchng the front of the house, so sneaking around the back and through a window works (or maybe they suspect the door is trapped). Lots of reasons, right?

But... if the PCs fail to pick the lock. And then fail to find a window they can open. And are walking around the house, failing to get inside, and getting frustrated, and then saying "well, I guess we can't get inside, so we'll just leave". That's the point where you (the GM) should ask them "why don't you use the key under the rock?"

This is not a case of hidden information the characters should not have. They have the information. They are not using it. There's a point at which you must shift your assumption from "they know about the <key under the rock/plan to attack the woods> and are deliberately choosing not to use it" to "Maybe they forgot about the <key under the rock/plan to attack the woods> and I should remind them about it". Regardless of what the actual reason is, once you get to the "they are going to give up" stage, then you are not harming the situation by reminding them of the information that they arleady have.

[Unoriginal]

It's really not. The specifics of the attack really have nothing to do with the aid that is being asked. Helping at the apartment doesn't have anything to do with where the eventual attack will be, besides motivation.


"Tell us what the werewolves are planning" isn't just about the specifics of the attack.

It's about what the werewolves are doing, plain and simple.

From what I understand the PCs didn't even tell about the whole formorian business.


Probably not. That's where this breaks down, for me.

EDIT: For example, if I lived in the DC Universe, went up to Superman, and told him that some Evil Aliens (TM) were doing some Invasion of the Body Snatchers stuff to some people in my apartment building... and he responded by asking me, "OK, but do you know what they're planning?" (whether or not he led with, "OK, that's not my problem.")? I'd be feeling kinda suss wrt whether he wasn't compromised, tbh. That's just... not the kinda question that logically flows here, y'know?

I... don't follow.

If people are informed about an antagonist, you think it's suspect to ask "do you know what this antagonist is planning?" ?

Like, is Superman supposed to just figure out what the aliens are planning by himself, without checking if you may have the info already?

"Body-snatching aliens? That's a huge problem. Do you know what their plan, citizen who raised the alarm on this specific menace and who seems to know about them more than average?" would get you to think he's kinda suss?

[Quertus]

"Tell us what the werewolves are planning" isn't just about the specifics of the attack.

It's about what the werewolves are doing, plain and simple.

From what I understand the PCs didn't even tell about the whole formorian business.



I... don't follow.

If people are informed about an antagonist, you think it's suspect to ask "do you know what this antagonist is planning?" ?

Like, is Superman supposed to just figure out what the aliens are planning by himself, without checking if you may have the info already?

"Body-snatching aliens? That's a huge problem. Do you know what their plan, citizen who raised the alarm on this specific menace and who seems to know about them more than average?" would get you to think he's kinda suss?

I told Superman where the Aliens are right now, as well as gave him plenty of evidence that the Aliens are Evil and Up to No Good.

And, in this scenario, Superman said, a) "not my problem", b) "but do you know if they're free tonight?"

It does not matter what the Evil Aliens are up to if Superman ends their threat right now, while he knows where they are and what they're doing. Superman isn't supposed to, isn't supposed to have to figure out what they're up to, he's supposed to end them before they can do the Evil Thing they're Invasion of the Body Snatchers-ing people for.

Granted, that may be a child-like simplistic view of the problem if the Evil Aliens are connected to other groups, some of the Evil Aliens aren't home right now, or some of them get away. But, you know, the PCs are kids. Even if they aren't / weren't kids, they might want Superman to come calling and explicitly ask for their help *after* he accidentally lets some get away / after he dealt with their immediate problem of Evil Aliens trying to Invasion of the Body Snatchers their parents.

Or, to put it yet another way, if I came to you for help, because my house was on fire, and you asked, "but do you know where the fire is going?", you can bet I'd be rather non-plussed. :smallannoyed:

And you can expect that, no, most of my groups wouldn't ask that question. :smallamused:

EDIT: It would be very different if Superman said, "Yes, of course I'll help you. BTW, do you know what the Evil Aliens are planning / why they're Invasion of the Body Snatchers-ing all those people?". But following up a "not my problem" with that question? Nope, totally suss. Totally falls apart for believable line of thought for Superman. ALSO, these are kids. "Excuse me, small child, I'm only Superman or some immortal being beyond mortal comprehension, like a dragon or deity or dream incarnate. Do you happen to have cracked the master plan of the Evil Entities I wasn't even aware of until tonight?"? Yeah, that also just doesn't fly. How often do you ask small children to do your taxes, or to reveal the secrets of the universe? The logic just fails in too many ways here, I just cannot see even one person, let alone all of the fey, asking that question in this scenario.

[Kish]

I seem to be detecting a contradictory argument here. The Seelie Court is apparently supposed to be the noble altruistic unhesitating intervention of Superman and also the cunning, manipulative treachery of the most intelligent versions of Lex Luthor.

If they're backstabbing manipulators who will enslave you if you give them any opening, you don't expect them to do noble deeds out of the goodness of their heart. If they're heroes who will smite evil because it's evil, you don't have any reason not to offer them any and all information they ask for whether you understand why they want it or not.

[Quertus]

I seem to be detecting a contradictory argument here. The Seelie Court is apparently supposed to be the noble altruistic unhesitating intervention of Superman and also the cunning, manipulative treachery of the most intelligent versions of Lex Luthor.

If they're backstabbing manipulators who will enslave you if you give them any opening, you don't expect them to do noble deeds out of the goodness of their heart. If they're heroes who will smite evil because it's evil, you don't have any reason not to offer them any and all information they ask for whether you understand why they want it or not.

Hahahaha! Touche.

I'm listing different reasons why various things might happen; they're allowed to be contradictory.

Also, the PCs are kids. Their reasoning is allowed to be contradictory.

Also, it's Talakeal's table in Bizarro World. Sadly, their reasoning likely is contradictory.

All that said, I could totally see myself hoping that the Fey will behave as White Hats with all the Heart of Gold of Superman, just like many of the stories say, while also being afraid that they'll manipulate and **** me with all the cunning and wiles of Lex Luthor... just like many of the stories say.

When it comes to the Fey (or the stories about them), that isn't exactly a contradictory stance.

[Vahnavoi]

Ok then.

Yes. People use words imprecisely all the time. On the other hand, it is highly unusual (and more than a little rude) to go off on them for it, tell them they need to delete the word from their vocabulary, and derail a thread with pedantic discussions over it.

Quite the opposite, in any kind of remotely technical discussion where correct understanding of terms is vital to the point, it is quite usual to tell a person to stop using a word if they keep blatantly equivocating it or misunderstanding it in a way that makes them repeatedly draw false conclusions.

In mainstream philosophy, this is called "unpacking a word": a person is asked to explain what they mean without using the word or its common synonyms. It is similar to "unasking a question", where a person is asked to re-examine assumptions that go to a (typically, loaded) question they're asking.

You keep using words such as "optimal" and, now, "perfect information" in ways that demonstrably do not match their usual technical meanings and this repeatedly causes you to draw false conclusions. I can now add the word "puzzle" to the list. Let's look at the definition you picked:

"A single-player activity with a goal and legal moves is a game, as opposed to a puzzle, if it also possesses a clear losing condition; that is, a game-state under which the goal can no longer be achieved. So sudoku is a puzzle but not a game - you can't lose sudoku, only give up before solving it."

If you accept the common notion that tabletop roleplaying games don't have clear victory and loss conditions (dubious in itself, but discussion for another time), the line in the sand drawn between "game" and "puzzle" here would also preclude tabletop roleplaying games from being games. Additionally, this definition hinges on "player gives up before finding a solution" not being acknowledged as a clear losing condition. This means the only practical distinction between a "puzzle" and a "puzzle game" is whether the rule "player loses if they give up before find a solution" is explicitly present in whatever form. Lastly, this definition does not support your idea that planning a heist is puzzle and not a game. Planning a heist in a roleplaying game typically has all kinds of boundary conditions, including real time limits, that do not allow for infinite retries - "no heist will happen if you can't finish planning it within a game session" is a pretty clear and common loss condition. So, the definition you fished through Google does not support your opinion particularly well.

You can't hide behind "but people use words imprecisely all the time" if your own imprecision leads you to speak nonsense.

[GloatingSwine]

I seem to be detecting a contradictory argument here. The Seelie Court is apparently supposed to be the noble altruistic unhesitating intervention of Superman and also the cunning, manipulative treachery of the most intelligent versions of Lex Luthor.

If they're backstabbing manipulators who will enslave you if you give them any opening, you don't expect them to do noble deeds out of the goodness of their heart. If they're heroes who will smite evil because it's evil, you don't have any reason not to offer them any and all information they ask for whether you understand why they want it or not.

Well are you talking to a troll or a sidhe? (It's not an unreasonable expectation that trolls would act on the knowledge of evil threatening the common folk, if they could). Both of these things can be totally true within the Seelie Court (which is more of a philosophical mindset than anything else, it's not what you might be thinking of as a "court" as a structured heirarchy around a ruler, that's houses, every fae has both courts within them but one rules the individual, and sometimes that changes. Sometimes it just changes with the season. Make a deal with a Seelie fae one side of Samhain and find yourself owing an Unseelie one the other. Still want to take on a debt starting from zero?)

[Kish]

"Agreeing with Vahnavoi" is not on the list of things I expected to do today when I woke up this morning, but yes, Talakeal. "People use words imprecisely all the time" is not a flawless defense against "this specific thing you have said, it is wrong to the point of being goofy." If you keep getting that reaction (when most of us don't), maybe consider that the fault is not in your stars?

And if the fae actually are backstabbing manipulators who will enslave you if you give them any opening, then being super cagey about talking to them is way more rational (https://web.archive.org/web/20141026220728/http://agc.deskslave.org/files/ex122.html) than it might appear from "they wouldn't answer any questions from the people they were trying to recruit to help them."

(In the campaign at that link, is Balcoth being paranoid about the ogre bounty hunter? Absolutely. If he showing unjustified and strange hostility? The GM certainly seems to think so. Is he wrong to think "I better not let him approach me"? Clearly not. It's always worth considering whether the PCs are showing genuine irrationality or basic pattern observation skills.)

[Talakeal]

Speaking of semantic arguments, Gbaji, I am still really interested in hearing why you say this all stems from a misunderstanding "as most people predicted"?

As far as I can tell, you are lumping misunderstandings and mistakes in together?

For example, your scenario above where someone drops off a wall without realizing there is a 200' drop is a misunderstanding. Deciding that you can take a 200' fall because you are a level 20 barbarian and jumping off anyway, and then dying by rolling a 50+ on the 20d6 damage and then a natural 1 on your save vs. massive damage is a mistake.


In this case, the players claim that they intentionally chose not to tell the Seelie about the attack because they decided it wasn't relevant. That is a mistake in my book, not a misunderstanding.


Of course, it still doesn't answer my initial question about why a PC would choose not to answer a direct question. IRL people ask questions that are seemingly unimportant or meaningless to the topic at hand, sometimes they are, sometimes I just don't know what they are getting at, in either case, I don't refuse to answer a direct question unless I have a damn good reason to.



Quite the opposite, in any kind of remotely technical discussion where correct understanding of terms is vital to the point, it is quite usual to tell a person to stop using a word if they keep blatantly equivocating it or misunderstanding it in a way that makes them repeatedly draw false conclusions.


Honestly, I am not sure how my using a word lazily could ever lead to me reaching a false conclusion as I know what I mean by the term. Now, misunderstanding a term someone else claimed could certainly do it, but you aren't accusing me of leading *other* people to false conclusions.


Ok, so you believe my conclusion is false. Why don't we discuss why my conclusion is false rather than having semantic arguments about the terms I use to describe it?



Lastly, this definition does not support your idea that planning a heist is puzzle and not a game. Planning a heist in a roleplaying game typically has all kinds of boundary conditions, including real time limits, that do not allow for infinite retries - "no heist will happen if you can't finish planning it within a game session" is a pretty clear and common loss condition. So, the definition you fished through Google does not support your opinion particularly well.

Well, by that logic puzzles simply do not exist as nobody has infinite time to devote to one.


You can't hide behind "but people use words imprecisely all the time" if your own imprecision leads you to speak nonsense.

It's only nonsense if you can't understand what they are getting at. For example people use "begging the question" wrong all the time, but I can still understand them because I know what the mean to say is "raises the question". Hell, my parents call me by my older brother's name all the time, and call my current dog by the name of the dog I had as a child, but I still know what they mean.

Is this the case here? That you still can't tell what I am getting at?


In short, I am saying that if the GM is obliged to tell the players what they believe to be the easiest solution to any problem, it ceases to feel like a role-playing game to me. As you are no longer expected to solve problems in character, and thus meta-gaming becomes the norm, you are no longer really playing a role. Likewise, you are no longer overcoming challenges and solving problems, you are simply following the GM's directions, so it is not really a game anymore. At this point, it really feels more like an actor following a script than a role-playing game. Of course, the player still have the option to go off script and fail intentionally, but at that point I still think it feels more like a collaborative storytelling activity than an RPG.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can't hide behind "but people use words imprecisely all the time" if your own imprecision leads you to speak nonsense. Welcome to the Internet Vahnavoi. An unfortunate number of those who grew up with poor language arts skills, or who otherwise neglected developing those, still show up on the internet and keep making excuses for sloppy and bad communication skills. As the warden in Cool Hand Luke pointed out: "What we have here is failure to communicate." Despite all of the noise there is very little signal.

"Agreeing with Vahnavoi" is not on the list of things I expected to do today when I woke up this morning, but yes, Talakeal. "People use words imprecisely all the time" is not a flawless defense against "this specific thing you have said, it is wrong to the point of being goofy." If you keep getting that reaction (when most of us don't), maybe consider that the fault is not in your stars? See above. There is resistance to accepting that concept. Been seeing it for about three decades. If only September would end.

And if the fae actually are backstabbing manipulators who will enslave you if you give them any opening, then being super cagey about talking to them is way more rational (https://web.archive.org/web/20141026220728/http://agc.deskslave.org/files/ex122.html) than it might appear from "they wouldn't answer any questions from the people they were trying to recruit to help them." Depending on the lore, or folklore, one is applying to a game setting, "The Fey are tricksy" is a common basic assumption.


Honestly, I am not sure how my using a word lazily could ever lead to me reaching a false conclusion as I know what I mean by the term. But if you believe in a false definition you can still err.
I see this on occasion in aviation maintenance, where a misunderstanding of a technical term results in thousands of dollars of damage to a part, a damaged or scrapped part, or damage done unintentionally.

"No, it means this {other thing} to me" will not recover that part. That is the stance which you are taking, and it sets you up for error.

The above problem makes writing technical manuals and technical instructions so darned important. That discipline uses glossaries or industry standards that have a Common Language established so that one knows what words mean. (Or terms).

For our discussions here, a Common Language is very helpful (as RAW is in various rules discussions) to make sure that we are talking about the same concept. If you are talking about Budweiser beer, and I am speaking of Pork Rinds, our discourse has a lot of dysfunction in it.

When you take a word that embodies a concept, and you then twist or misapply it, you will - whether you mean to or not - twist or misapply the concept behind it and set yourself up for errors both large and small...in your native language.

It gets a bit rougher when using another language.

[Talakeal]

But if you believe in a false definition you can still err.
I see this on occasion in aviation maintenance, where a misunderstanding of a technical term results in thousands of dollars of damage to a part, a damaged or scrapped part, or damage done unintentionally.

"No, it means this {other thing} to me" will not recover that part. That is the stance which you are taking, and it sets you up for error.

The above problem makes writing technical manuals and technical instructions so darned important. That discipline uses glossaries or industry standards that have a Common Language established so that one knows what words mean. (Or terms).

For our discussions here, a Common Language is very helpful (as RAW is in various rules discussions) to make sure that we are talking about the same concept. If you are talking about Budweiser beer, and I am speaking of Pork Rinds, our discourse has a lot of dysfunction in it.

When you take a word that embodies a concept, and you then twist or misapply it, you will - whether you mean to or not - twist or misapply the concept behind it and set yourself up for errors both large and small...in your native language.

It gets a bit rougher when using another language.

Those are all examples of someone misunderstanding instructions though. That is not the same thing as being unable to come to a correct conclusion because you don't know the proper terms for the thing you are describing.

My conclusion doesn't hinge on whether I choose to call the option with the best risk to reward ratio the optimal path, the most efficient path, the best path, or the whang-doodle-boodle-ga-ga path.

The fact that you acknowledge that people speak different languages imples to me that you already understand this; otherwise it would be impossible for people from different countries to ever come to the same conclusion about anything; and woe to people who never learned to speak at all!

[KorvinStarmast]

Those are all examples of someone misunderstanding instructions though. That is not the same thing as being unable to come to a correct conclusion because you don't know the proper terms for the thing you are describing. Go ahead and dig in your heels.
If we go from page 1 to now, we see the usual pattern emerging.
I don't know if anything that was posted in the past few pages will help you at your table, but I hope that some of it does in your future sessions. Happy Gaming.

[kyoryu]

Go ahead and dig in your heels.
If we go from page 1 to now, we see the usual pattern emerging.
I don't know if anything that was posted in the past few pages will help you at your table, but I hope that some of it does in your future sessions. Happy Gaming.

An interesting exercise is to take the behavior seen here, assume it is seen at his table (a reasonable assumption), and ask if there is a reasonable explanation that just requires that Talakeal behaves the same way at his behavior that he does in this forum.

I... think there is.

[Talakeal]

Go ahead and dig in your heels.
If we go from page 1 to now, we see the usual pattern emerging.
I don't know if anything that was posted in the past few pages will help you at your table, but I hope that some of it does in your future sessions. Happy Gaming.


Insisting that someone's argument is wrong because they used the wrong terminology to describe it is the textbook example of a semantic argument.

I will dig in my heels about having semantic arguments with random people on the internet is pointless. And yes, I agree, such pointless arguments will do nothing to help me at my table.



I didn't post this thread because I was having a gaming horror story and needed help with my game; I posted it because I noticed a trend of players screwing themselves over by refusing to answer direct questions from NPCs whom they have no reason to distrust and then not being able to explain why they did so. My players were mildly frustrated that they failed at their objective, but there was no big drama or anything, and it allows the game to go on in an interesting direction rather than following my script, so what is the problem?



Now, the broader issue which this thread has degenerated into (as many of them do) boils down to the spectrum with the "killer GM" on one side and the "railroad GM" on the other; don't hold the PCs hands enough and they will get frustrated because they are losing but hold their hands to much and they will get frustrated from a lack of control. And the problem is, that exactly where this line is very hard to gauge, as players have different preferences, and even the same player's preferences change based on the situation and their current mood. And, when you have 3-8 players at the table, it is often the case that there is no right path, because one person's tolerance for "killer GMing" and another person's tolerance for "railroading" may actually overlap!


An interesting exercise is to take the behavior seen here, assume it is seen at his table (a reasonable assumption), and ask if there is a reasonable explanation that just requires that Talakeal behaves the same way at his behavior that he does in this forum.

I... think there is.

Can you explain to me what exactly this behavior is?

Because AFAICT its just Vahnovoi making a big deal over the language I used and me telling him that arguing on the basis of semantics alone is bullcrap and he needs to actually attack my argument itself rather than the terms I use to explain it. And no, I can't recall that ever happening at my table.

[Keltest]

Talakeal, there's a fairly consistent pattern of you making a thread asking for advice, being told where you went wrong, and you digging in your heels and insisting that the people you are asking for advice are simply misunderstanding you and that it didn't actually happen the way everyone understood it from your post. Its also fairly common to poke at your story and have you explain that no, the way you described it the first time wasn't correct, and that ACTUALLY what happened was this... at which point people start tuning you out because you aren't being informative anymore.

If your game sessions are even remotely like this, its no wonder everyone is so miserable all the time. Nobody can talk to each other or understand anything!

[Unoriginal]

In short, I am saying that if the GM is obliged to tell the players what they believe to be the easiest solution to any problem, it ceases to feel like a role-playing game to me. As you are no longer expected to solve problems in character, and thus meta-gaming becomes the norm, you are no longer really playing a role. Likewise, you are no longer overcoming challenges and solving problems, you are simply following the GM's directions, so it is not really a game anymore. At this point, it really feels more like an actor following a script than a role-playing game. Of course, the player still have the option to go off script and fail intentionally, but at that point I still think it feels more like a collaborative storytelling activity than an RPG.

Let's imagine the following situation:

A fae talks with the PCs, and the fae explicitly does not know who the PCs are beside "some mortals".

At one point, a PC asks why the fae didn't do X, and the fae decides to lie and says it's because of Y.

Ex:

PCs: "Why didn't you stop Queen Medb's forces from kidnapping the local ruler's son before he was taken to Medb's fairy realm?"
Fae: "it's because my Queen, Titania, forbid us from interfering with the Unseelie's actions toward mortals."
PC knowledge: Titania actively encourages her subject to hinder the Unseelie in any way they can, no matter the reason, due to her rivalry with Medb.

Now, it happens that one of the PCs has the kind of knowledge/character traits/background/etc that would immediately let them know that "it's because of Y" is a complete lie.

Would you interrupt the scene, look at the player whose PC would have the knowledge, and state "due to [insert relevant reason], your PC knows that the fae is lying about this last part, Y would never result in X"?

[Kish]

I also think there's something kind of ironic about objecting to a White Wolf game becoming a collaborative storytelling activity. Though...this is all missing the point, I think. I would be surprised if anyone--Talakeal or any of Talakeal's players--actually wanted to be playing a game where the GM told the players "insert X action, after which you will get Y result, and then you..."

The problem was a plot outline that presumed the PCs would do something they weren't willing to do. That problem could be located in any part of that sentence, but something went wrong and everyone got frustrated.

[Talakeal]

Talakeal, there's a fairly consistent pattern of you making a thread asking for advice, being told where you went wrong, and you digging in your heels and insisting that the people you are asking for advice are simply misunderstanding you and that it didn't actually happen the way everyone understood it from your post.

Ok... I can see where you are coming from. But that didn't happen here.

I am not asking for advice about how to make sure the PCs succeed. I am not really asking for advice at all. I am trying to understand why PCs refuse to answer direct questions from NPCs they have no reason to distrust. Its a phenomenon I have seen in many games, most of which I am not even a participant in, and it always baffles me.

Now, once I have an answer for this, maybe I can implement it into advice for games in the future. But, IMO, the advice of "don't question it, just break character and tell the PCs to give up the info OOC" is not satisfying to me and, imo, will lead to worse games for everyone involved.


The arguments in this thread are, for the most part, almost entirely about my vocabulary (or lack thereof) rather than anything that actually happened in the game.

I mean, I totally get where you are coming from, I admit that I am stubborn and defensive, and that I often refuse to admit I am wrong.

The problem is, in this particular case, as I said in my previous post, this isn't really about right and wrong, it's about a spectrum with no perfect answer. For example, Brian was kind of glum that he was unable to get the Seelie on his side, but he didn't actually get upset until I told him what he should have done. That's the problem... this session I "go wrong" by not holding the PCs hands enough, but next session I "go wrong" by holding the PCs hands too much. There is no one "right way" here.


...the way you described it the first time wasn't correct, and that ACTUALLY what happened was this... at which point people start tuning you out because you aren't being informative anymore...

Did this actually happen in this thread? If so, I missed it.

I fully admit that my summarizing details aren't great, and in an effort to keep my posts concise and readable I leave out details that later become relevant, but I don't think that is the case in this thread? What are you thinking of that was wrong in my initial summary?



Let's imagine the following situation:

A fae talks with the PCs, and the fae explicitly does not know who the PCs are beside "some mortals".

At one point, a PC asks why the fae didn't do X, and the fae decides to lie and says it's because of Y.

Ex:

PCs: "Why didn't you stop Queen Medb's forces from kidnapping the local ruler's son before he was taken to Medb's fairy realm?"
Fae: "it's because my Queen, Titania, forbid us from interfering with the Unseelie's actions toward mortals."
PC knowledge: Titania actively encourages her subject to hinder the Unseelie in any way they can, no matter the reason, due to her rivalry with Medb.

Now, it happens that one of the PCs has the kind of knowledge/character traits/background/etc that would immediately let them know that "it's because of Y" is a complete lie.

Would you interrupt the scene, look at the player whose PC would have the knowledge, and state "due to [insert relevant reason], your PC knows that the fae is lying about this last part, Y would never result in X"?

Yes. But I would say that falls under describing the scene using in character knowledge, not imparting OOC knowledge for metagame reasons.

It's interesting where you draw the line though; like for example, if a player intentionally gives you what you think is a really bad tactical plan, do you step in and warn them because their character should know better even if the player thinks its a great idea?


I also think there's something kind of ironic about objecting to a White Wolf game becoming a collaborative storytelling activity.

White Wolf claims that it is a "story game" but it really isn't, it's a traditional RPG with more emphasis on the social pillar than most of its predecessors.


Though...this is all missing the point, I think. I would be surprised if anyone--Talakeal or any of Talakeal's players--actually wanted to be playing a game where the GM told the players "insert X action if you want Y result."

I totally agree.

Which is why I am pushing back against the idea that the correct way to react to the player's making mistakes is to break character and provide them with the OOC solution as a general principle, rather than something to be done as a last resort when the game is about to go majorly off the rails, which is absolutely did not during the session in question.


The problem was a plot outline that presumed the PCs would do something they weren't willing to do. That problem could be located in any part of that sentence, but something went wrong and everyone got frustrated.

I mean, that is phrasing it in the least charitable way possible for everyone involved, but that is essentially correct.

[Quertus]

I... don't follow.

If people are informed about an antagonist, you think it's suspect to ask "do you know what this antagonist is planning?" ?

Like, is Superman supposed to just figure out what the aliens are planning by himself, without checking if you may have the info already?

"Body-snatching aliens? That's a huge problem. Do you know what their plan, citizen who raised the alarm on this specific menace and who seems to know about them more than average?" would get you to think he's kinda suss?

I want to revisit this, because my first response reads like a false dichotomy to me. *I* knew what I meant, but, from my words, y'all might not.

Because of their belief in the Goodness of Superman, a Child tells him about the Evil Aliens doing the Evil Thing involving Pod People right now in his apartment building.

Response 1

Superman: "Of course I'll help you."

Child: :smallbiggrin:

Superman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: :smallconfused: Odd question, I feel you lack a sense of urgency here...

Child: "Sure, they're planning on using the Pod People to Rob the Bank."

Superman was helpful, so the child would respond, but I would feel that something was off at Superman asking this question.

Response 2

Superman: "Of course I'll help you."

Child: :smallbiggrin:

Superman: Picks up Child, flies (in direction Child is pointing, presumably). "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Huh. This Superman is bigger on Child Endangerment and Planning than I expected. I wonder if there's mechanics in this system that make this behavior expected.

Child: "Sure, they're planning on using the Pod People to Rob the Bank."

Superman was helpful, so the child would respond, but I would feel something was off in the writing.

Response 3

Superman: "Of course I'll help you."

Child: :smallbiggrin:

Superman: "Bats, can you..." Flies off (presumably in direction Child is pointing).

Batman: Looms over Child

Child: :smallfrown::smalleek:

Batman: Bends down to child's level. "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Nicely done. :smallsmile::smallcool:

Child: "Um... sure? They're planning on using the Pod People to Rob the Bank."

Superman was helpful, Batman tried not to be too intimidating, so the child would respond; everyone was fairly in character (if perhaps a bit smarter / better at planning than usually portrayed), so I'd feel this made sense.

Response 4

Superman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Where the **** did that come from? [Is Superman's player metagaming to figure out what the rest of the module looks like? // Who wrote this module? // is this supposed to be a hint that Superman is a Pod Person? // insert other hypothesis here]

Child: "Um..."

Child: [:smallconfused: "They're in my apartment right now, turning people into Pod People" // :smallconfused: "... sure? They're planning on using the Pod People to Rob the Bank." // :smallfrown: {Loses faith in Superman}]

Superman hasn't committed to being helpful, so the child may or may not respond (may just repeat their initial request, thinking perhaps Superman misheard / didn't understand / however they rationalize it); a more savvy individual certainly wouldn't respond. I would find this sequence equivalent to "Help, my house is burning down!" "Do you know where the fire is going?", and be metagaming whether this is supposed to sound this stupid in character, or whether it's just a product of bad writing.

Response 5

Superman: "Not my problem."

Me: What the... who wrote this module? Is it someone sane, and this is a hint / neon sign that Superman is a Pod Person, or is it just bad writing?

Child: :smallfrown: Loses faith in Superman

Superman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Yeah, no, definitely a Pod Person.

Child: ---

Batman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Child: :smalleek: I need an adult.

Echoes from dozens in the Justice League: "Do you know what they're planning? Do you know what they're planning? Do you know what they're planning?"

Child: :smalleek: Has mental breakdown.

This only works as a horror story where the entire Justice League is already Pod People.

-----

Note how, in 2&3, when Superman has already agreed to help, and is already in the act of (moving towards) solving the problem, does the question actually make sense to ask.

Ask yourself, if your house was on fire, when would you feel it was OK for someone to ask, "Do you know where the fire is headed?", and apply it to this situation. If you're anything like me, about the only time it doesn't feel really wrong is when the other person has already agreed to (work to) put out the fire. (I say "about" because you could pull it off with a, ":smalleek: wait, do you live near the fertilizer plant?" realization from the speaker or something similar.)

In short, yes, in every scenario, asking "do you know where the fire is going?" is suss; only in the most reasonable of scenarios, where you've built up believable characters, and a conversation into which you can dovetail that question with the utmost care, does it not ruin any chance of coming off as normal, sane, human conversation.

Not that the Fey in this example necessarily have to talk like humans, of course, but people's reactions to them OTOH will likely take into account this deviation from human norms.

[icefractal]

Response 4

Superman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Where the **** did that come from? [Is Superman's player metagaming to figure out what the rest of the module looks like? // Who wrote this module? // is this supposed to be a hint that Superman is a Pod Person? // insert other hypothesis here]
I feel like you have weirdly high standards for "not a pod person" 😝

Like, the situation the PCs presented didn't have such incredible urgency, and even if it did, the fey can't respond at superman speeds anyway - compared to the multiple days it will take to muster up forces, scout the fomori, and launch an attack, a few extra minutes to have more info about the situation seems well spent.

But also, why is the example with Batman the "good" one? Because Superman is springing into action with zero delay while a second person asks the questions? But ...
* Probably Superman can beat the pod people just fine even with a small delay, and reverse the process (and if he can't reverse it, then multiple people are likely already gone in the time the child took to find Superman).
* If the pod people *are* so powerful no delay can be made, then Batman being late could also be disastrous.

[Reversefigure4]

Broadly speaking, it's because the players have less clarity than their characters.

For the character, the details of the werewolf interrogation that happened four hours ago in game time is pivotally important.

For the player, the werewolf interrogation happened two weeks ago in the previous session, and they're devoting more portions of their brain to "Does that girl at the donut shop like me?" or "the Smith project is due on Tuesday" or "need to remember to pick up milk", all more relevant details to their real life. It's MUCH easier for the GM sitting there with a pile of notes and knowledge of the "right" answer than it for players to remember and work out what direct answer they should be giving, so what's obvious to the GM is not obvious to the players.

It's a minor issue easily resolved with some basic GM questioning or reminders, but in Talakeal-land the issue is heavily compounded by:
1) The players don't like social scenes and NPC and like playing powerful characters, but are instead in a campaign where they are literal children heavily embroiled in Fae politics.
2) The players don't care (probably related to 1), are paying very limited attention and would rather be on their phones. They likely haven't even -heard- the detail about Muir Woods, let alone later remembered it AND connected that -that- is the information specifically that needs giving as opposed to other details.
3) Talakeal likes odd puzzles with specific non-obvious solutions, and in this case requires the Muir Woods password specifically to get the Fae aid, but is unwilling to directly communicate with players about it.
4) Even if he did communicate successfully, since the players heavily distrust Talakeal, directly telling them "You should tell the Faye about Muir Woods, since it's one of their holdings" will result in the players assuming it's a trick and not doing it intentionally.

At most tables, getting players to answer direct questions from NPCs is a trivial problem. At a Talakeal table, it was an unsolvable problem from the instant the campaign began.

[Talakeal]

Broadly speaking, it's because the players have less clarity than their characters.

For the character, the details of the werewolf interrogation that happened four hours ago in game time is pivotally important.

For the player, the werewolf interrogation happened two weeks ago in the previous session, and they're devoting more portions of their brain to "Does that girl at the donut shop like me?" or "the Smith project is due on Tuesday" or "need to remember to pick up milk", all more relevant details to their real life. It's MUCH easier for the GM sitting there with a pile of notes and knowledge of the "right" answer than it for players to remember and work out what direct answer they should be giving, so what's obvious to the GM is not obvious to the players.

It's a minor issue easily resolved with some basic GM questioning or reminders, but in Talakeal-land the issue is heavily compounded by:
1) The players don't like social scenes and NPC and like playing powerful characters, but are instead in a campaign where they are literal children heavily embroiled in Fae politics.
2) The players don't care (probably related to 1), are paying very limited attention and would rather be on their phones. They likely haven't even -heard- the detail about Muir Woods, let alone later remembered it AND connected that -that- is the information specifically that needs giving as opposed to other details.
3) Talakeal likes odd puzzles with specific non-obvious solutions, and in this case requires the Muir Woods password specifically to get the Fae aid, but is unwilling to directly communicate with players about it.
4) Even if he did communicate successfully, since the players heavily distrust Talakeal, directly telling them "You should tell the Faye about Muir Woods, since it's one of their holdings" will result in the players assuming it's a trick and not doing it intentionally.

At most tables, getting players to answer direct questions from NPCs is a trivial problem. At a Talakeal table, it was an unsolvable problem from the instant the campaign began.

This is probably the best answer I am going to get, and its mostly correct.

Although I will say that its not quite as bad as you are making it, for example it was less than an hour between the interrogation and the changeling encounter OOC, and as I said above it was not the only solution, it was merely the easiest; talking to the selkies or asking about the mysterious glade in golden gate park would have lead down the same path for example.

As for #3, I still don't know how to present obstacles so they don't come across as puzzles, either at the table or online. It is never my intent to have a puzzle with only a single solution, but for some reason it always comes across that way even though I can't think of a time when that was ever literally the case. Outside of a few printed modules; those are full of stupid mono-solution puzzles.

[Quertus]

I feel like you have weirdly high standards for "not a pod person" 😝

When I know that there are Pod People, my standards are “does not behave as expected” including “does not behave like a Human”. Which, of course, neither Superman nor the Fey are human, which is part of the joke.

In this case, responding to “my house is on fire!” with “do you know where the fire is headed?” sufficiently violates human social norms to trigger the “Pod People” red flags.


But also, why is the example with Batman the "good" one? Because Superman is springing into action with zero delay while a second person asks the questions? But ...
* Probably Superman can beat the pod people just fine even with a small delay, and reverse the process (and if he can't reverse it, then multiple people are likely already gone in the time the child took to find Superman).
* If the pod people *are* so powerful no delay can be made, then Batman being late could also be disastrous.

The “good” one, really, is just “Superman springs into action without asking stupidly out-of-character questions”. But, in order to make the best possible scenario in which the question actually gets asked? I played around with a few, and actually found one I could accept: where the “great detective” did, you know, detective work, while the Big Blue Boyscout murderhobo went and punched evil faces.

[Kish]

Although I will say that its not quite as bad as you are making it, for example it was less than an hour between the interrogation and the changeling encounter OOC, and as I said above it was not the only solution, it was merely the easiest; talking to the selkies or asking about the mysterious glade in golden gate park would have lead down the same path for example.

As for #3, I still don't know how to present obstacles so they don't come across as puzzles, either at the table or online. It is never my intent to have a puzzle with only a single solution, but for some reason it always comes across that way even though I can't think of a time when that was ever literally the case. Outside of a few printed modules; those are full of stupid mono-solution puzzles.
Multiple dialogue options that lead down the same path still only counts as one solution. If you want to avoid railroading you need to have diverse options such that "I'm not willing to reveal anything to these fae" is "okay, you're not taking that option, so you'll be taking one of the other options," not just a more expansive dialogue tree.

(Also: Talking to the selkies is one of the options that would have worked? Really? Not saying specific words to them, just talking to them? "Hello"->"Yes the Seelie Court will help you attack these werewolves"? If only some fae were looking for specific words then...that actually makes it sound even more like a puzzle. "You can say specific words to the fae who are actively trying to talk to you, or figure out which fae who are not actively trying to talk to you you should actively try to talk to." It sounds like the rogue tutorial in Neverwinter Nights: "To get the key, you can pick the lock on this door, or disarm the trap on this chest, or convince this loyal-but-dumb orc to give you the key he has.")

[Talakeal]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.



Multiple dialogue options that lead down the same path still only counts as one solution. If you want to avoid railroading you need to have diverse options such that "I'm not willing to reveal anything to these fae" is "okay, you're not taking that option, so you'll be taking one of the other options," not just a more expansive dialogue tree.

The are trying to diplomatically win over allies among the Fey in their battle against the werewolves. I mean, yeah, I guess they could theoretically do so without dialogue, but is that rally something I need to explicitly plan for ahead of time rather than just winging it if it happens to come up?

(And remember, getting the Seelie as combat allies isn't something they are being forced into either. There are numerous ways to solve the problem. And there are numerous allies whom the players can turn to.)


Also: Talking to the selkies is one of the options that would have worked? Really? Not saying specific words to them, just talking to them? "Hello"->"Yes the Seelie Court will help you attack these werewolves"?

No, obviously not. But the Selkies already have diplomatic ties to the Seelie, the Shapechangers, and the Nunnehei, and are going to be a lot better at coordinating an alliance between them than the random Seelie nobles would be and could certainly help point them in the right direction even without knowing exactly what the Black Spiral Dancers are planning or why the children want to get the Fey involved.

[icefractal]

In this case, responding to “my house is on fire!” with “do you know where the fire is headed?” sufficiently violates human social norms to trigger the “Pod People” red flags.So ... if you completely change the scenario, the correct answer changes? :smalltongue:

Because the original scenario is more like "there's a terrorist cell operating out of my apartment building's basement" - if you told the FBI that, you're probably hoping they don't just immediately rush in guns blazing, because that's likely to result in a lot more bystander deaths than a careful operation.

Even pod people - if you rush in and smash the local operation immediately, you might not find the mothership and thus end up losing hundreds of abducted people you could have rescued with a little more care taken.

But fire - yes, fire should be dealt with ASAP, and doesn't really benefit from info-gathering. Which is a different scenario you didn't mention until this most recent post.

IDK, I'm surprised because I thought your general approach was to avoid trope-driven mistakes, and "rushing into action immediately without doing any preparation or telling anyone else" is a pretty classic one.

[Keltest]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.


Well for one, it is the DM's job to keep track of all the information as the worldbuilder. But more directly, if the players don't remember something... then they don't remember it. They definitionally can't tell you what they don't know because they don't know it!

[Telok]

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

Because you're posting. About something that isn't a perfect d&d game played exactly like other people want you to.

[Quertus]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

Don't engage, don't engage, don't... dang it, I failed my Will save! :smallamused:

So, if you ask me, in this scenario, I wouldn't say you're at fault for not forcing the issue; if anything, I'd say you're at fault for forcing the issue, by having all the Fey keep trying to pry the information out of the PCs. But I won't fault you for that, because you had multiple ideas you'd accept for the PCs goals of get the Fey on board, which sound fairly reasonable to my ears, and were trying to get the Players to make their own plan work.

What I might fault you for, though, is not spending the 30 seconds to 2 minutes with an OOC Sanity Check, the moment the Players mentioned their idea, if you didn't see how the PCs had a workable plan: "OK, so you want to meet with the Fey to get their aid, but how are you planning to get them to help?". That simple touching base whenever you're confused helps games run smoothly.

Alternately, I'd fault you for for not being confused by the Players' declared intentions of meeting with the Fey, if you didn't see how that wasn't something with a clear path to victory -> the Players likely misunderstood something.

-----

All that said, in the general case? The GM is the eyes and ears of the characters, they are the interface between the game world and the Players. There is IMO no responsibility they have greater than ensuring as seamless an interface as possible. And, at times, this includes making sure the Players remember or understand things that their Characters certainly would.

IMO, the "optimal" (internet word) implementation of that isn't to try to "railroad" (internet word) information into the Players, but to ask genuine questions, and, if the response shows an invalid game state exists in the Players' minds, then fix that game state, so you're both / all on the same page.

Clear as mud?


So ... if you completely change the scenario, the correct answer changes? :smalltongue:

Because the original scenario is more like "there's a terrorist cell operating out of my apartment building's basement" - if you told the FBI that, you're probably hoping they don't just immediately rush in guns blazing, because that's likely to result in a lot more bystander deaths than a careful operation.

Even pod people - if you rush in and smash the local operation immediately, you might not find the mothership and thus end up losing hundreds of abducted people you could have rescued with a little more care taken.

But fire - yes, fire should be dealt with ASAP, and doesn't really benefit from info-gathering. Which is a different scenario you didn't mention until this most recent post.

IDK, I'm surprised because I thought your general approach was to avoid trope-driven mistakes, and "rushing into action immediately without doing any preparation or telling anyone else" is a pretty classic one.

Saying "fire" is more urgent than "Pod People" is suss - you must be a Pod Person. :smallamused:

I've been using "fire" as an example for a bit now. The secret point of the fire was actually not an inherent property of its urgency (although perhaps could be derived from that), but that, in the case of a fire, it should be easier to see how a) someone could consider that "not their problem"; b) someone - especially but not exclusively a "not my problem" person - could care very much if the fire is likely to spread to, for example, the Fertilizer Factory (kaboom!) or to something they do care about. But even with that being easier to understand, the transition from "My home is on fire, please help!" to "Do you know where the fire is heading?" feels rather jarring, and not like something a Real Boy (TM) would say.

But, sure, we can use your example of a "reporting a terrorist cell". It brings in its own baggage, so I'll poke at that baggage, too.

If I'm reading a spy thriller in which a child tells an FBI agent (or a Police Officer) about a Terrorist Cell in their complex, and the 1st line out of their mouth is, "do you know what they're planning?"? I'll likely read it in a very patronizing voice, assuming the officer doesn't even believe that they're real / assuming that the child is playing a game, or has misunderstood something.

But fine. Let's say that the child brings the PO irrefutable evidence, like 2 quarts of nitroglycerin or something.

Eh, I have to build up to this, I have to explain where I'm coming from.

If I see a bank robbery in progress, and tell the nearest person I can find about it, and they say, "do you know what they're planning next?", my thought process will be, "they're in on it, they're trying to find out if they can afford to let me live".

In the specific example under discussion in this thread, the chain of events was "not my problem" followed by "do you know what they're planning?".

With me on the color pallet I'm looking at?

So, in this context, when I see a "neutral" telling of "a child plopped several liters of nitroglycerin down in front of the PO, requested help with the Terrorist Cell in their apt basement, and the PO asks, 'Do you know what they're planning' without first acknowledging that they'll help"? I have to step back from my color pallet enough to say, "OK, the PO could just be in shock that they survived the child bringing that much nitro into the police station, handling it so roughly, and surviving all the way here with that approach, that their mind is mush, and they just incredulously skipped over the social niceties and went straight to that step". Because, based on my experience talking with the fuzz, even they will at least hint that they're on your side before probing for information, especially if the person they're talking to is clearly leery or recalcitrant. In other words, even for your example, IME, this chain of events makes absolutely no sense.

Which was also part of the point of Superman, someone known to go punch evil in the face, without really planning things very well. It's not "trope", it's "roleplaying".

Now, it gets tricky what we're discussing at any one moment, whether it's the PoV of children who were expecting Superman, and how their reaction could make sense in that context, or me playing an RPG, or me IRL. But, yeah, there's very few situations where I'd expect social norms to allow a "do you know what the next step looks like?" query to go uncontested from someone who hasn't offered help, and the example of 'there's a fire' is one of the strongest contenders for that being an acceptable line of thought.

[Unoriginal]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

A player should absolutely say they forgot... but they need to remember that they forgot something to be able to do that.

Like, the difference between:

Player: "How about we ask... dang, forgot his name, you know, the thieves' guild Celestial expert guy? We met before that mission at Castle Redgrave, when they told us."

GM: "Renald the Radiant?"

Player: "That's the one, thanks."

And:

Player: "Dang, no one in the group know about those Celestials, and none of our allies do either. Guess we'll have to go fish for info somehow. Let's start by the library."

GM: "Well, your PC would remember you met an expert on the topic. Renald the Radiant, of the thieves' guild."



It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

What you don't get is that it's not a question of "forcing the issue". No one is forcing anything.

To continue the example above, if the player goes "Oh yeah, that guy. He could likely answer our questions, but then the thieves' guild would also know we're going to do something related to the Celestials, and them getting involved is even scarier than going into the situation blind. I vote we search for a different source of info", then the GM should just say "fair" and move on (unless the player forgot or misunderstood something else, of course).

No one is forcing anyone or anything.

It's just that sometime you need to remind the players of a path that could be taken, then the PCs wouldn't have forgotten it. What they decide to do afterward is still just as up to them as before.

[Reversefigure4]

Well for one, it is the DM's job to keep track of all the information as the worldbuilder. But more directly, if the players don't remember something... then they don't remember it. They definitionally can't tell you what they don't know because they don't know it!

Ding! We have a winner. People cant tell you what they don't know. And in this case the players are literally telling you "this problem seems unsolvable" when the characters already know the answer, but the GM - who knows they know - won't tell them what it is, even though the GM is the eyes and ears of the characters?

Players are sorting through likely several relevant looking details - (examples only) the werewolfs prisoner name is Howlfang, he fears fire, the attack is at Muir Woods, the attack is on Tuesday, the attack involves blood magic, the werewolves target is children, the purpose of the attack is to kidnap rather than kill, the werewolves have moved here recently from Canada, their leader has one eye and tells no-one about his past, and the werewolves live in a cave in Fang Forest.

What tells me as a player that "Muir Woods" is the more relevant keyword compared to the other dozen details?

I've run lengthy, complex Call of Cthulhu campaigns. Players are largely attentive and interested the whole time. They take notes (ending the campaign with 50+ pages of them!). They keep a clue book with handouts in it. They strategize. I'd consider them highly intelligent. But they -still- make mistakes, like the above "kill the duke instead of the baron" example, or mixing details of an event in Cairo with one in London to draw an invalid conclusion. And it's a 10 second problem to solve when I-as-GM-with-better-information say "Do you mean the Duke? You have no reason to kill the Baron" or "actually, your characters discovered the London cultists didn't seem to care about star movements".

[Batcathat]

Players are sorting through likely several relevant looking details - (examples only) the werewolfs prisoner name is Howlfang, he fears fire, the attack is at Muir Woods, the attack is on Tuesday, the attack involves blood magic, the werewolves target is children, the purpose of the attack is to kidnap rather than kill, the werewolves have moved here recently from Canada, their leader has one eye and tells no-one about his past, and the werewolves live in a cave in Fang Forest.

What tells me as a player that "Muir Woods" is the more relevant keyword compared to the other dozen details?

True, but I'm not sure it's relevant in this case. If I understand the situation correctly, the party refused to reveal pretty much any information about the problem. Now, if they had decided to reveal more but didn't mention Muir Woods in particular (whether because they forgot about it or didn't think it was important), then it seems reasonable for the GM to remind them or at least hint heavily at it, I think.

[Unoriginal]

True, but I'm not sure it's relevant in this case. If I understand the situation correctly, the party refused to reveal pretty much any information about the problem. Now, if they had decided to reveal more but didn't mention Muir Woods in particular (whether because they forgot about it or didn't think it was important), then it seems reasonable for the GM to remind them or at least hint heavily at it, I think.

The players claim they didn't reveal any information because they didn't think it was relevant, but it's an after-the-fact claim.

Asking them "is there a reason why you're not answering the question?" at the time could have made a difference, at least in OP's understanding of the situation.

[Kardwill]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.


As a GM, you have a perfect, complete vision of what happened, what is happening, what will probably happen, every character, every event, and, most importantly, what is important and what isn't, and how things are connected

As a player, I just don't know what details I'm supposed to remember. I'll remember only part of an information. I'll mix characters and places. I'll forget the description of the villain. I'll forget that you said there is a red carpet in the bedroom. I'll not pay attention to that long list of titles of the sidhe lord because they're probably not that important, right?

- So I won't randomly ask the GM to repeat the complete description of every NPC in the game, just in case it's important. And I probably won't notice that the Mysterious Stranger I just met fits the description of Lord Alexander Ravenwald that I met last game, unless the GM lays it out really thick, or simply says "That guy really looks familiar, by the way." if it's just a hint to get me thinking and check my notes, or "You can't see his face, but he has those long blue-black hairs of the Ravenwald family" if it's important that I remember.

- And when I say I'm checking the walls for secret doors in the bedroom where someone got murdered, the GM, who knows the red carpet is hiding a trapdoor, could remind me of its existence, either in a new description ("you put the painting down on the red carpet in the middle of the rooom") or simply by asking "do you check under the carpet, too?"

- And when I talk to the seelies, the GM could say "The tall sidhe present himself as the Lord Protector of Muir Wood", or even, if I'm not reacting to that name, "Muir Wood... It takes you a few seconds to realise that it may be the same place that the Dancers are about to attack"


The players hear LOTS of things over the course of the game, but only the GM knows what is important and what is "fluff". Reminding the players of some details they forgot is not playing in their place, it's giving them more options.

If a player looks like an idiot, check if they have the same "mental image" as you. 9 times out of 10, they just misunderstood, didn't remember an important piece of information, or didn't see the link between 2 "obvious" pieces of information.
(Like in you example of the barbarian jumping off a cliff, even if they're aware it's 20D6 damage, they may simply not remember that the "massive damage" rule exists at your table. If you stop to tell them "it will be 20D6 damage. If I roll over 50 damage, you'll have to save or die. Do you jump, or not?", it's not a mistake anymore, but an informed choice)

[King of Nowhere]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

it's not exclusively the gm's job. it's everyone's job, when there are reasons to suspect someone may have forgot something, to remind them.
because, fun fact, people who have forgotten an important piece of information generally don't know that they forgot it. when you forget a specific detail, you often also forget that the detail exhisted in the first place.
so, when somebody is apparently doing something stupid, remind them of the elephant in the room. that's everyone's responsibility. it's not a blame game

[Unoriginal]

As a GM, you have a perfect, complete vision of what happened, what is happening, what will probably happen, every character, every event, and, most importantly, what is important and what isn't, and how things are connected

As a player, I just don't know what details I'm supposed to remember. I'll remember only part of an information. I'll mix characters and places. I'll forget the description of the villain. I'll forget that you said there is a red carpet in the bedroom. I'll not pay attention to that long list of titles of the sidhe lord because they're probably not that important, right?

- So I won't randomly ask the GM to repeat the complete description of every NPC in the game, just in case it's important. And I probably won't notice that the Mysterious Stranger I just met fits the description of Lord Alexander Ravenwald that I met last game, unless the GM lays it out really thick, or simply says "That guy really looks familiar, by the way." if it's just a hint to get me thinking and check my notes, or "You can't see his face, but he has those long blue-black hairs of the Ravenwald family" if it's important that I remember.

- And when I say I'm checking the walls for secret doors in the bedroom where someone got murdered, the GM, who knows the red carpet is hiding a trapdoor, could remind me of its existence, either in a new description ("you put the painting down on the red carpet in the middle of the rooom") or simply by asking "do you check under the carpet, too?"

- And when I talk to the seelies, the GM could say "The tall sidhe present himself as the Lord Protector of Muir Wood", or even, if I'm not reacting to that name, "Muir Wood... It takes you a few seconds to realise that it may be the same place that the Dancers are about to attack"


The players hear LOTS of things over the course of the game, but only the GM knows what is important and what is "fluff". Reminding the players of some details they forgot is not playing in their place, it's giving them more options.

If a player looks like an idiot, check if they have the same "mental image" as you. 9 times out of 10, they just misunderstood, didn't remember an important piece of information, or didn't see the link between 2 "obvious" pieces of information.
(Like in you example of the barbarian jumping off a cliff, even if they're aware it's 20D6 damage, they may simply not remember that the "massive damage" rule exists at your table. If you stop to tell them "it will be 20D6 damage. If I roll over 50 damage, you'll have to save or die. Do you jump, or not?", it's not a mistake anymore, but an informed choice)

To give an example that did happen to me:

I was a player during a game session where the PCs needed to cause as much confusion as possible at a slave market, so we could take down the slavers.

One of the bad guy factions trading at the market had a massive steam-powered vehicle, so since one of the NPCs with us had both a sword that can cut through any metal easily and a magic rune necklace that makes the wearer completely immune to fire and heat, my PC proposed that the NPC cut into the vehicle's steam engine, as such a thing leaking would cause a lot of panic and noise, and with her heat immunity she would be safe from the danger.

GM told me that my PC would be familiar enough with the technology to know that compressed steam being released in a burst is not just fire damage, but also bludgeoning damage. My PC ended up not informing the NPC of that, since a) my PC had seen her survive worse without issue, including fighting a giant made of metal without any real injury b) my PC didn't particularly care if this NPC died, given in his eyes she was just "that pirate who would be raiding ships and killing people for a few coins right now if she didn't see the treasure we're after as a better payday" c) my PC had already warned her to just damage the engine then get away from it due to the shrapnels if it blew up, and it she was nonchalant about the danger.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is not 'breaking character' for a GM to provide a memory prompt to a Character in the game. Doing so is treating the Character as a Character who recalls In Game stuff that the Character had learned. This is applicable to a lot of game systems. Systems I have seen this applied to, from long ago to last week:

1. D&D
2. Traveller (original)
3. Mothership
4. Blades in the Dark
5. Dungeon World/Fellowship
6. Runequest

And that's just off the top of my head.

[Ionathus]

If the players have various experiences with "gotcha" GMing, that will inform their reaction. It takes coaching, as a GM, to sometimes get past that. It also takes, to follow up on the point Kish made, establishing a trust relationship.

This was my guess from reading the original post as well.

"Gotcha GMing" can be pretty subtle if you're not looking for it. I often go overboard when roleplaying "hostile" NPCs -- but I try to make sure that the conversation never goes completely off the rails and the PCs can still get what they need out of the interaction: they can "save" the interaction with good enough rolls or creative thinking. But if you're not being careful, it can sometimes feel as a PC that the NPC has a billion unknown triggers you don't know about and saying the "wrong" thing can shut a social encounter down with little or no warning.

That can create a scenario where players are afraid to say ANYTHING, to ANYONE, because it could potentially lock them out of future interactions with that NPC. Especially if they don't have a good read on the NPC and what they like/dislike. That goes double for NPCs who are actually in clandestine organizations or dealing with any sort of specific secrets.

Social play is, in my experience, the biggest potential disconnect between what the GM and the players perceive as "fair consequences." It's easier to recognize as a DM when you're killing PCs with unfindable pit traps. It's harder to recognize when your standards of "good roleplay" are out of sync with your players'. It's very easy to subconsciously impose consequences on NPC conversations that make your players afraid to "play in the space."


It is not 'breaking character' for a GM to provide a memory prompt to a Character in the game. Doing so is treating the Character as a Character who recalls In Game stuff that the Character had learned.

Yep, I do this all the time too. I can't imagine a multi-session TTRPG experience where the GM doesn't give significant "memory leeway" to players. The players get to experience this world in chunks of a few hours each, once a week (or month). The PCs experience the world continuously, and in the world of the game, that thing Catherine forgot from September happened to her PC last Tuesday. She would remember it.

[Kardwill]

it's not exclusively the gm's job. it's everyone's job, when there are reasons to suspect someone may have forgot something, to remind them.
because, fun fact, people who have forgotten an important piece of information generally don't know that they forgot it. when you forget a specific detail, you often also forget that the detail exhisted in the first place.
so, when somebody is apparently doing something stupid, remind them of the elephant in the room. that's everyone's responsibility. it's not a blame game

Oh, yeah, and the GM is completely allowed to forget stuff or get confused, too. Especially if it's stuff told by a player 3 games ago. That's the reason why I'm not fan of the old "the GM is always right" proverb : Quite often, actually, he's not ^^

[Keltest]

Oh, yeah, and the GM is completely allowed to forget stuff or get confused, too. Especially if it's stuff told by a player 3 games ago. That's the reason why I'm not fan of the old "the GM is always right" proverb : Quite often, actually, he's not ^^

My rule as a DM is get it in writing or it didnt happen. I have a lot of conversations about D&D, I will not remember the specifics of all of them.

[Talakeal]

So, are we decided that the reason this happens is because the players have forgotten the relevant details and then lie about it to save face?

If so, it still seems to me that the players are the ones "at fault" here as they are the ones being actively dishonest where the GM is just confused.

I still find it hard to believe that the players had asked a direct question less than an hour before, gotten a direct answer, and then all four of them promptly forgot the major plot point so thoroughly that not only were they unable to repeat it back to me when asked the same direct question, but also forgot that they had ever learned it and therefore "don't know what they don't know".

Because yeah, forgetting details is normal, but the real kicker is when asked a direct question they can't just say "I don't know" or "I forgot" but instead have to bluff and act cagey and come up for excuses for why they aren't answering.



So, some of you probably remember my "avatar of hate" encounter from a few years back. The party encountered a monster that split like a hydra when killed. The party consulted a sage about how to defeat it, and he told them it could never be destroyed through violent means. So, the party came up with a good working plan to imprison it without killing it. But, when it came time to enact the plan, half the party went off script and starting doing weird random stuff. I (and the other two party members) thought they had forgotten the plan and said as much, and then the players insisted they hadn't forgotten anything, that they assumed that I was intentionally trying to trick them by playing OOC word games because of my phrasing, that "cannot be destroyed through violent means" was intentionally misleading and really meant that there was some random non-violent act that would cause the monster to keel over dead without splitting. To this day I am fairly certain that the two players simply forgot / weren't paying attention during the revelation from the sage and / or the planning session, but rather than admitting that, they went on the offense and insisted that I was trying to trick them.

I posted a long thread about the situation, and it seemed like the majority of the posters agreed with the players; that no forgetting was involved, it was merely a case of a cagey players responding appropriately to an untrustworthy GM.

The lessons I took from that thread seem to be running very opposite to the ones in this thread, and so now I am further confused.

[Keltest]

So, are we decided that the reason this happens is because the players have forgotten the relevant details and then lie about it to save face?

If so, it still seems to me that the players are the ones "at fault" here as they are the ones being actively dishonest where the GM is just confused.

I still find it hard to believe that the players had asked a direct question less than an hour before, gotten a direct answer, and then all four of them promptly forgot the major plot point so thoroughly that not only were they unable to repeat it back to me when asked the same direct question, but also forgot that they had ever learned it and therefore "don't know what they don't know".

Because yeah, forgetting details is normal, but the real kicker is when asked a direct question they can't just say "I don't know" or "I forgot" but instead have to bluff and act cagey and come up for excuses for why they aren't answering.



So, some of you probably remember my "avatar of hate" encounter from a few years back. The party encountered a monster that split like a hydra when killed. The party consulted a sage about how to defeat it, and he told them it could never be destroyed through violent means. So, the party came up with a good working plan to imprison it without killing it. But, when it came time to enact the plan, half the party went off script and starting doing weird random stuff. I (and the other two party members) thought they had forgotten the plan and said as much, and then the players insisted they hadn't forgotten anything, that they assumed that I was intentionally trying to trick them by playing OOC word games because of my phrasing, that "cannot be destroyed through violent means" was intentionally misleading and really meant that there was some random non-violent act that would cause the monster to keel over dead without splitting. To this day I am fairly certain that the two players simply forgot / weren't paying attention during the revelation from the sage and / or the planning session, but rather than admitting that, they went on the offense and insisted that I was trying to trick them.

I posted a long thread about the situation, and it seemed like the majority of the posters agreed with the players; that no forgetting was involved, it was merely a case of a cagey players responding appropriately to an untrustworthy GM.

The lessons I took from that thread seem to be running very opposite to the ones in this thread, and so now I am further confused.

While I appreciate optimism of all kinds, my experience with your threads and communication style leads me to believe that when the players say they don't trust you to communicate clearly to them and think youre trying to play word games, theyre probably being sincere.

Now personally, were I in the position of having both strangers on the internet and people I know in person and regularly talk with doubting my ability to communicate clearly, and were I also inclined to a certain amount of introspection, I might draw the conclusion that I am in fact not communicating clearly, that this is a problem of mine, and that I should deal with it. But that's just me.

[Telok]

I posted a long thread about the situation, and it seemed like the majority of the posters agreed with the players; that no forgetting was involved, it was merely a case of a cagey players responding appropriately to an untrustworthy GM.

The lessons I took from that thread seem to be running very opposite to the ones in this thread, and so now I am further confused.

Actually my impression was the players have trust issues with basically everyone, but especially with any NPCs in all sorts of games. As you said, you've seen the same behavior in games where you weren't GM. And so have I, in games where player/GM trust isn't an issue. You've really been quite consistent over the years to the point that you're either telling the truth and running at least average quality games with semi-lunatics, or you're some mastermind playing a bizzare 4-d chess multi-year troll of a whole forum. Occam's razor and all that.

Like I ran a super super simple murder mystery bit on a spaceship over the weekend that took well over an hour to get from "list of suspects" to "search people's rooms" and never once did they ask to talk to any if the the suspects at all. We're talking the whole thing is solved by any one of: basic room searches, an average social skill roll (command or intimidate or persuade or scrutiny and any attribute you can manage to justify), divinations of various sorts (they have a competent buy not PC amazing diviner on staff because its required for warp navigation), enchantments of various sorts, and anything I didn't think of that should reasonably work.


So they got a missing person, their description (including weapons and armor), the inventory of the room (weapons but no armor), an over-fed pet miniature tiger shark. Ok so the shark's tummy is full of the owner's hair. And now we've found the headless corpse clogging sewage line 84-D (no weapons & no armor). The autoposy reveals no head (cut off) and point blank shotgun blasts in the back. Its weird how the GM just hands us a list of crew members with shotguns as soon as we ask? And go over the inventory of the room again (weapon but no armor).

A RL hour later after dredging the entire sewage system. Checking the drinking water tanks. Holding the laundry crew at gun point. Checking the mess & stores for ground up bone. Going over the inventory of the room again. Setting up the corpse back in its room with sentry gun traps. And running armed patrols up amd down the corridors... they get around to searching suspects rooms and noticing that one of the guys on the suspect list had a book titled How To Make A Lamp Out Of A Skull plus was wearing a pricy breastplate (pricy because magi-tech makes it good armor you can wear under clothes or vaccuum suits and is automatically considered fully concealed).

For reference, the written descriptions as provided to players (random generator a gogo). Notably also is the crew ladder rukes requirement that the PCs have previously interacted with the characters involved and thus have been previously provided their normal written descriptions.

Murderer: Jhiemue, male halfling, Incorrigible kleptomaniac. maintenance & repairs. pink hair & silver eyes, Grumbles at the slightest sign of Inclement Weather feels it in bones, Rails endlessly against the stereotype that halflings are thieves, likes cougars, silver compact cars, and the color purple, hates spiders, pet lizard, shotgun, magitech breastplate, gladiator armor, Camera, backpack, book: How To Make a Lantern Out Of a Skull, and A bag of healthy lizard treats, taboo: Light a Fire without assistance once a day.

Victim: Erers, a no-nonsense matron female human ex-pirate. Provisions & stores. brown hair & black eyes, Feeding their pet miniature shark is always very Loud and Messy, likes sea dragons, jeeps, and the color violet, hates deep water/boats/swimming, has a bicycle & pet mini-shark, submachinegun, magitech breastplate, rope, A bag of dice, book: Hunting Mushrooms In the Dark, and book: How To Use a Sundial In the Rain, taboo: Be unfailingly polite in your manner and speech

[Talakeal]

While I appreciate optimism of all kinds, my experience with your threads and communication style leads me to believe that when the players say they don't trust you to communicate clearly to them and think youre trying to play word games, theyre probably being sincere.

Now personally, were I in the position of having both strangers on the internet and people I know in person and regularly talk with doubting my ability to communicate clearly, and were I also inclined to a certain amount of introspection, I might draw the conclusion that I am in fact not communicating clearly, that this is a problem of mine, and that I should deal with it. But that's just me.

I am absolutely aware that I do not communicate clearly. As you may be aware, I have NVLD, a sensory processing condition that, among other things, means that I can't read non-verbal communication clues and also parse language differently than most people.

My problem is not that I think I am being clearer than I am, its that people assume that I am lying or trying to trying to trick them rather than asking clarifying questions. So, in this case, rather than just asking me "Did you mean that it cannot be destroyed at all, or did you mean that there is some secret non violent means of destroying it?" the player decided to just ignore the plan that the party had come up with and ended up sabotaging her teammates.

Or, if you want an example from this very thread, NichG blew up at me because he insisted I was "making up stuff to win an argument" rather than accepting my explanation that I thought he was talking about CRPGs as a whole rather than his three specific examples (which I have never played and have no ability to comment on one way or the other).

Or another thread last year where someone claimed that I was intentionally giving them bad information in an effort to make them look foolish because as revenge for finding an infinite power loophole in the playtest document in my signature and refusing to accept that I a wasn't clear on the specifics of what I was asking and gave him a general answer rather than a specific one... which is really bizarre because I actively pay editors and play-testers explicitly for the purpose of finding such loopholes and am very appreciative when they are found as I can then fix them.



And yeah, I could do better about asking clarifying questions myself. I am just so afraid of accidentally railroading the PCs, and I have had players in the past who react really badly if they perceive that I am telling them what to do / and or implying that they are doing something stupid or forgetful.


In your previous post, one of your complaints about my posting style was that I assume there are misunderstandings and thus repeatedly try and clarify my position. Right? To me, this is an indication that I am already aware that clear communication is a problem of mine and am attempting to deal with it.

[Unoriginal]

So, are we decided that the reason this happens is because the players have forgotten the relevant details and then lie about it to save face?

If so, it still seems to me that the players are the ones "at fault" here as they are the ones being actively dishonest where the GM is just confused.

If you absolutely want to assign an "at fault" verdict here, then both you and your players are "at fault".

You should have asked why they weren't answering the question when the scene was happening, rather than wait for after it was said and done.

Your players shouldn't have reacted like that to the situation.


I am absolutely aware that I do not communicate clearly. As you may be aware, I have NVLD, a sensory processing condition that, among other things, means that I can't read non-verbal communication clues and also parse language differently than most people.

My problem is not that I think I am being clearer than I am, its that people assume that I am lying or trying to trying to trick them rather than asking clarifying questions. So, in this case, rather than just asking me "Did you mean that it cannot be destroyed at all, or did you mean that there is some secret non violent means of destroying it?" the player decided to just ignore the plan that the party had come up with and ended up sabotaging her teammates.

That's more your players' problem, I have to say. They probably have their own demons to handle, one way or another.

That being said, I think the thing to learn from this thread is: as a GM, if you get confused by what the players do or want, address it OOC immediately by asking them about it, without assuming anything, and explain things if it's something the PCs should be aware of but the players have forgotten, misunderstood when it was explained the first time, or simply ignored due to not paying attention.

[Talakeal]

If you absolutely want to assign an "at fault" verdict here, then both you and your players are "at fault".

You should have asked why they weren't answering the question when the scene was happening, rather than wait for after it was said and done.

Your players shouldn't have reacted like that to the situation.



That's more your players' problem, I have to say. They probably have their own demons to handle, one way or another.

That being said, I think the thing to learn from this thread is: as a GM, if you get confused by what the players do or want, address it OOC immediately by asking them about it, without assuming anything, and explain things if it's something the PCs should be aware of but the players have forgotten, misunderstood when it was explained the first time, or simply ignored due to not paying attention.

I’ll do my best.

Expect an update in a few months where it backfired on me horribly! :p

[gbaji]

Speaking of semantic arguments, Gbaji, I am still really interested in hearing why you say this all stems from a misunderstanding "as most people predicted"?

Because I stated this several times:

Literally, the second and third paragraph from the very first post I made in this thread:


Did the PCs actuallly know that the werewolves were turning residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the Woods? Or did they only know that residents in their tenement were being attacked and turned? It's really easy sometimes for GMs to get so caught up in the details of the scenario they are running, that they fail to realize that they didn't actuallly tell the players some key bit of information (or didn't make it significant enough for them to remember when it matters later).

The PCs may very well have thought that "bad guys doing bad things to folks in our building" was the main point of what was going on, and not at all thinking in terms of "then they're going to use the folks they transformed to do bad things to some other people in some other location", nor think that was important.

And in that same first post:


Which, again, points to them either not knowing about the planned attack on the woods, or not thinking it was relevant. You need to stop as a GM at this point and make sure your players know what's going on. Most of the time, I've found that this is about a miscommunication earlier in the game, which leads the players to make what appears to be a mistake later on.

Admittedly, in the first post, I focused most on "did you remember to tell them this", but even then included the possibility that they may have been told, but didn't think it was relevant/important/whatever.

In another post (also on page 3):


So yeah. I'm going to ask the question: Did the players actualy know this key bit of information (and/or its relevance/importance)?

So.. Still talking about "did they know this *and* know that it was relevant/important?".

But wait! There's more (on page 5):


I'll ask again: Did you straight up ask them (as the GM): "Do you tell them about the planned attack on the woods?". If you didn't do this, then you do not know if they withheld that information because they chose to withhold it, or they just plain didn't remember it, or didn't think it was relevant.

Note. Again, I'm covering several bases here, but repeatedly posted that the "solution" to all is the ask the players (while playing the scene) for clarification.

And another (in the same post):


You've repeated the same sequence multiple times. But I still don't have the answer to the question: Did the players intentionally avoid telling the NPCs about the planned attack on the woods, or did they forget (or not know? Or not realize it was signficiant? etc).

And another (also in the same post):


But my guess is that if you were to actually ask your players "why didn't you tell them about the planned attack on the woods", the answers would be a mix of "what attack on the woods" and "I didn't think they'd care about the woods, if they didn't seem to care about the city and the tenement building".

And then, finally, you answered the question about what the players thought:


The players claimed they didn't think it was significant.

They also said they were confused because they thought Caer (the Changeling word for castle) and Caern (the werewolf word for a holy place) were the same thing. Although this actually confuses me more, because if they thought the changelings were talking about the Werewolf caern, they should have been more likely to bring up the impending attack, not less.

So.... I was right, right?

What's strange is that when I later pointed this out, you spun off on a tangent on my use of the word "misunderstood" while ignoring the much more important point that your players, in fact, choose not to share the information because they didn't think it was important/significant/relevant/whatever.

Most misunderstandings occur as a result of people not placing the same weight on things that other people do. You tell me to turn off the main highway and take a surface street instead becuase you know that the bridge is out and we'll plummet to our deaths if we don't get off the highway. I think that you are just telling me to take a slightly shorter local route for convenience. That's a "misunderstanding", right?

In this case, you told the players about the bad guys plan because you knew that this would be important information they could use to get assistance from some of the Fae factions. Your players thought that it was just scenario/background/motivation fluff. That is a "misunderstanding". It's literally what the word means. Different people's understanding of something is different. One understands that "the bad guys plan to attack the woods is important to other fae factions", while the other understands "the bad guys plan to attack the woods is just fluff that establishess their motivation for what we care about, which is them attacking people in our tenement building".

You're making a strage semantic argument, while missing the much larger picture. What matters here is that your players failed to mention the planned attack because they didn't think it was important or would help them. That's not a mistake in the way that choosing to bring a knife to a gunfight is. It's a mistake made by people who don't know the difference between a knife and a gun in the first place. Part of your job as GM is to make sure they understand those game mechanic/setting things, so that they may make good decisions. And when it's abundantly obvious that they are making a huge mistake, you need to step in and make sure that the mistake is not made out of ignorance of the facts.

In this case, they didn't know that a piece of information you provided them earlier was important. It was your job to remind them about it, and then give them the choice as to whether/how to use it.



In this case, responding to “my house is on fire!” with “do you know where the fire is headed?” sufficiently violates human social norms to trigger the “Pod People” red flags.

Eh? I'm not getting your line of thinking here. If I'm a fire figther, and my job/purpose is to fight fires (or I'm superman, or whatever), then you are correct.

But, as someone who lives in an area occasionally hit by major wildfires, if someone's house is on fire, I'm very much interested in where the fire is headed, whether I need to evacuate, whether I'm at risk of losing my life/stuff, etc. My job is not to put out someone else's house, but I do still care about my house.

That is far more relevant to the scenario at hand. The various fae factions care about their own territories and interests. They may not care at all about the "fire" in the tenement building. The may very very much care if that "fire" is going to spread to Muir Woods though.




Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

Several other people have already answered this, but I'll reinforce that: As the GM, you have "perfect information" about what's going on. You know which details are important, and which are not. You also know which lines of action by the PCs will result in which outcomes.

So yes. It's absolutely your responsibility to make sure to veryify if they know about and understand some key scenario point. As others have said, the players don't know what they don't know. If they've forgotten (or dismissed) some important fact in your scenario, they aren't going to magically know to remember or place weight on it, just out of the blue.

You know the information. Remind them of it. It's just not that hard.



I've run lengthy, complex Call of Cthulhu campaigns. Players are largely attentive and interested the whole time. They take notes (ending the campaign with 50+ pages of them!). They keep a clue book with handouts in it. They strategize. I'd consider them highly intelligent. But they -still- make mistakes, like the above "kill the duke instead of the baron" example, or mixing details of an event in Cairo with one in London to draw an invalid conclusion. And it's a 10 second problem to solve when I-as-GM-with-better-information say "Do you mean the Duke? You have no reason to kill the Baron" or "actually, your characters discovered the London cultists didn't seem to care about star movements".

Are we talking Masks of Nyarlathotep here? Don't remember star movements in that way (but definitely remember London and Cairo. Gah!). Either way, yeah CoC is super brutal about what may be very very minor details. And GMs absolutely have to be able to detect when players are going off into the weeds because they're just pursuiing a wrong (but viable) idea, or have mixed up or forgotten some minor but significant detail.


Oh, yeah, and the GM is completely allowed to forget stuff or get confused, too. Especially if it's stuff told by a player 3 games ago. That's the reason why I'm not fan of the old "the GM is always right" proverb : Quite often, actually, he's not ^^

Yeah. I agree with that one as well. As the GM you need to be willing and able to accept when your players tell you "but that's not how things happened". Obviously, the GM is the arbiter of "what is" in terms of places, locations, and people in the game setting. But when it comes to "what happened", GMs may very much misremember or misinterpret things. I've definitely seen it happen. Heck, I've done it myself.

You must be able to account for and adjust to that. Part of the GMs job is to communicate all things that happen in the game world to the players through the senses of their characters. Sometimes, there is a miscommunication or confusion. IME, the most important thing is for the GM to detect and correct these things as quickly as possible. It's not about "fault" (or even "who is right/wrong"). The problem is that the GM and the players have a different perception of something, and that needs to be corrected. The hows may vary, but it must be done, or the game will suffer.


That being said, I think the thing to learn from this thread is: as a GM, if you get confused by what the players do or want, address it OOC immediately by asking them about it, without assuming anything, and explain things if it's something the PCs should be aware of but the players have forgotten, misunderstood when it was explained the first time, or simply ignored due to not paying attention.

Yup. This can't be repeated often enough. If at any point as GM you are thinking "why are they doing this? or "why aren't they doing <some other thing>?" instead of just sitting there quietly calculating what will happen as a result of these actions, freaking ask them those questions.. You're thinking it, right? So ask.

It's really not that hard. It doesn't break the game. And it will prevent a huge number of (often very very major) problems in a game. Just... ask your players!

[Talakeal]

snip

Ok. I think I got you.

From the way you phrased it, it sounded to me like you were saying that I was assuming the players chose to not reveal the information because they mistakenly believed it was not relevant, but then it later came out that they only came to that conclusion because they actually misunderstand the situation and thought the werewolf's plan was something different than it was (or forgot about it entirely).

To me, its not merely a semantic argument, a misunderstanding and a mistake are, imo, fundamentally different situations.

For example:

A cocky group of tenth level PCs choose to attack a great wyrm red dragon because they are overconfident in their abilities and think they will win.

vs.

A group of tenth level PCs choose to attack a great wyrm red dragon because they misheard the GM and thought he said "wyrmling".

or:

A group decides to ignore the evidence implicating the count because he has been so honest and kind to them in the past that they assume he is being framed.

vs.

A group forgot about the evidence implicating the count because it happened four sessions ago and they have a lot on their mind.


or (one that happened a few months ago in my game:)

The players are fighting a seemingly endless horde of ghasts and don't move up to guard the choke point and avoid being surrounded

vs.

The players agree that the cleric will use turn undead to hold the ghasts back while the rest of the party kills them one at a time, but the cleric misunderstands the plan and rushes in to blast as many as possible, sending the ghasts scattering to the four corners of the map.


IMO, half of these are mistakes and half of them are misunderstandings.

And again, IMO, it is very a very different thing for the GM to tell the players what they are getting wrong OOC in the case of a misunderstanding vs. a mistake. Because it is, again IMO, vital for player agency that they be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own merits, and there needs to be some skill involved / risk of failure for a game to be compelling.


Whereas a GM correcting a misunderstanding is just playing fair, and serving their duty as the player's eyes and ears.


And again, it is a lot easier at your table because you have a lot more communication and trust. If your players discuss their plans OOC regularly, it is a lot easier for me, as the GM, to tell if they are misunderstanding the information.
Likewise, my players, when I point out a flaw in their plan, absolutely accuse me of railroading then, telling them what to do, trying to trick them, or calling them stupid, and then they often either disrupt the game with OOC yelling and name calling, storm off and leave the table, or double down on their behavior in an effort to prove that I am wrong / lying.


EDIT: I just had a thought. Maybe to avoid semantics, instead of talking about misunderstandings vs mistakes, we should be talking about information that helps the players stay in character vs. information that pulls the players out of character.

For example, if my character sees a colossal red dragon but I am imagining something more like an alligator, defining terms is a good thing.

But telling me "your character is wrong, the count is actually a bad guy despite how nice he has been to you in the past" if providing me with meta-game information and making it harder for me to make an in character decision.

Does that make more sense?

[Unoriginal]

Ok. I think I got you.

From the way you phrased it, it sounded to me like you were saying that I was assuming the players chose to not reveal the information because they mistakenly believed it was not relevant, but then it later came out that they only came to that conclusion because they actually misunderstand the situation and thought the werewolf's plan was something different than it was (or forgot about it entirely).

To me, its not merely a semantic argument, a misunderstanding and a mistake are, imo, fundamentally different situations.

For example:

A cocky group of tenth level PCs choose to attack a great wyrm red dragon because they are overconfident in their abilities and think they will win.

vs.

A group of tenth level PCs choose to attack a great wyrm red dragon because they misheard the GM and thought he said "wyrmling".

or:

A group decides to ignore the evidence implicating the count because he has been so honest and kind to them in the past that they assume he is being framed.

vs.

A group forgot about the evidence implicating the count because it happened four sessions ago and they have a lot on their mind.


or (one that happened a few months ago in my game:)

The players are fighting a seemingly endless horde of ghasts and don't move up to guard the choke point and avoid being surrounded

vs.

The players agree that the cleric will use turn undead to hold the ghasts back while the rest of the party kills them one at a time, but the cleric misunderstands the plan and rushes in to blast as many as possible, sending the ghasts scattering to the four corners of the map.


IMO, half of these are mistakes and half of them are misunderstandings.

And again, IMO, it is very a very different thing for the GM to tell the players what they are getting wrong OOC in the case of a misunderstanding vs. a mistake. Because it is, again IMO, vital for player agency that they be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own merits, and there needs to be some skill involved / risk of failure for a game to be compelling.


Whereas a GM correcting a misunderstanding is just playing fair, and serving their duty as the player's eyes and ears.

The point is that you have to ask to know what they're thinking, if they haven't expressed it.

Maybe the players know it's a bad idea to attack a great wyrm but one of them is playing their character's flaw of being overly confident and the others PCs have decided to tag along because they don't want this PC to die or were convinced because the overly confident PC is the only one in the group who fought a dragon before and won, so they consider them the expert on the topic (maybe playing up their own characters' flaws of being naive/overly trusting/easily swayed by star power/etc).

Maybe they played a video game where "great wyrm" is an enemy that can be dealt with at lvl 10 and they had a crossed wire moment.

Maybe they heard "wyrm" and mistakingly remembered it as being the term designating the monster most people would call "drake".

And maybe the players are actually overconfident and are making a tactical mistake.


The point is that you can't know unless the players express it, and many players won't express it unless you ask.

So the GM should just ask.