Players characters evading direct questions

[gbaji]

They really aren't though.

In this context, they are though. Remember, there is a sequence of data->conclusion sets going on here. Each conclusion in the sequences becomes the new "data" that is used for the next step in the sequence. This is a logic chain, and if you break a link it in, the entire thing falls apart.

Analyzing accurate data and coming to an incorrect conclusion is fundamentally different than coming to an incorrect conclusion because you analyzed faulty data.

Correct. But in this case, we're talking about a "misunderstanding" about the data (the relevance/importance of the planned attacks on the woods) leading to a "mistaken" conclusion (the Fae wont be interested in this). That now becomes the new "data", which then leads to the next "mistaken" conclusion "there's no point in mentioning this to the Fae".

Whether we consider the final point ("we're not going to mention this to the Fae") to be a mistake or a misunderstanding depends entirely on where in the chain we look. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. It is, fundamentally, both.

As the GM, it is my responsibility to make sure the player characters have an accurate picture of the imaginary world they inhabit.
As a player, it is my responsibility to analyze the information my GM gives me and decide on a course of action based on it.

Sure. But the PCs clearly did *not* have an accurate picture of the imaginary world they inhabit. If they did, they would not have missed the fact that the planned attack on the woods was "significant". The very fact that they didn't think it was means that somewhere in that chain of data->conclusion which you presented to them, they failed to make a connection which you assumed they should. That assumption itself is based on a setting norm. People presumably live in this world, and understand (at least to some degree) the political interactions of the Fae, and part of that includes "what they might be interested in".

To create an analogy, this would be like the GM telling players who have never heard of a car that "a light is flashing on the dash with an oil lamp symbol on it", and then telling them "Ok. You're standing at a Quickie Lube. What do you tell them?", and the entire table is staring at you blankly, because they don't actually have the world knowledge to know that a Quickie Lube may have anything at all to do with that light that is fashing on their dash. Following that up by having them play out a social scene where they walk up to and talk to 18 different Quickie Lube employees who all ask them "so what are you here for?" also isn't going to prompt them as to what they need to do or say.

Clearly the players would not have the knowledge to be able to properly interpret that symbol and come to the correct conclusion and course of action, right? But that's more or less what you did here. You assumed that they have sufficient understanding of the way the world's politics works and that the fact that the bad guys are "planning an attack on the woods" would result in them properly interpreting this to mean "one or more Fae factions might be interested in this, so if we tell them about it, they may help us with the bad guys".

Again. The evidence that they don't have the same picture of the world that you do is that you assumed that information was sufficient for them to draw that conclusion and take that action, but they didn't. It doesn't matter why. It only matters that it is true.

Again, you must play with people who have much stronger egos and much more trust than I do.

Nope. Just normal people. Is it possible that how things are presented to them maybe makes a difference here? At my table, there's a nice healthy back and forth of conversation and communication, and no one takes great offense at anything. Obviously, I can't speak with any completeness about the tables you play or GM at though.