Talakeal's Campaign Diary (1 Day without a horror story!)

[Duff]

Ok, so here is the next part.


So yeah, not a terrible session, but a very long and uneventful one where I had to resort to more handholding than I would like to keep it from turning into a true horror story.

.

Well done on successfully adjusting your GMing to suit the players

[Talakeal]

Well, had another session. Went well, if a bit long (as usual) and was a fairly traditional dungeon-crawl, with the added complication of a rival adventuring party.


Only had one issue. Game stalled because the PCs wanted something from an NPC but refused to talk in character or to actually tell me how they were asking or what they were offering in turn. So we got a situation that essentially boiled down to an old classic:

"I tell the guard to let us past."
"Ok, how are you going to do that?"
"By rolling diplomacy!"
"Ok, but just bluntly telling a guard to let you past for no reason is going to be a pretty tough roll."
"I got a 13."
"No, that's not going to do it. The guard tells you to get lost."
"Ok, well then we spend the next hour twiddling our thumbs."

Will post a full write-up of the session later this week.

Well done on successfully adjusting your GMing to suit the players

Thanks. But I am not quite sure what exactly I did in that regard.

[Jakinbandw]

My first thought is that your players need to read thr angry gms player tutorial:

https://theangrygm.com/memo-to-the-players-1/

[Talakeal]

My first thought is that your players need to read the angry gm's player tutorial:

https://theangrygm.com/memo-to-the-players-1/

I actually already had them read it.

It seems to have gone completely went over their heads.

They just reduce his XYZ structure to "I want to get the guard to let me past by talking to him using my diplomacy skill" and nothing changes.

[Xervous]

Seems to be misaligned expectations on the scenic significance of a guard. Sometimes bonking a faceless NPC with a skill roll is acceptable because they’re not supposed to be a focus of table time. Other times the exact phrasing is important. What are you doing to highlight important interaction points?

[Batcathat]

Only had one issue. Game stalled because the PCs wanted something from an NPC but refused to talk in character or to actually tell me how they were asking or what they were offering in turn. So we got a situation that essentially boiled down to an old classic:

"I tell the guard to let us past."
"Ok, how are you going to do that?"
"By rolling diplomacy!"
"Ok, but just bluntly telling a guard to let you past for no reason is going to be a pretty tough roll."
"I got a 13."
"No, that's not going to do it. The guard tells you to get lost."
"Ok, well then we spend the next hour twiddling our thumbs."

In my experience those situations are kinda tricky, even without accounting for the particular problems of your group, because I feel like its kind of unfair regardless of solution. On one hand, a character should be able to be good at something without the player being good at it (most players aren't great at swinging swords or casting spells, after all) but on the other hand, I instinctively want to reward the player who comes up with an eloquent speech or well-crafted lie while punishing the player who... well, does what your player did.

Though I suppose you were looking for kind of a middle ground, like the player at least coming up with the basic lie, even if the delivery is done through the roll of a die? (Which would be the equivalent of the player coming up with the tactics while the character's skill does the actual sword-swinging, I suppose).

[BRC]

In my experience those situations are kinda tricky, even without accounting for the particular problems of your group, because I feel like its kind of unfair regardless of solution. On one hand, a character should be able to be good at something without the player being good at it (most players aren't great at swinging swords or casting spells, after all) but on the other hand, I instinctively want to reward the player who comes up with an eloquent speech or well-crafted lie while punishing the player who... well, does what your player did.

Though I suppose you were looking for kind of a middle ground, like the player at least coming up with the basic lie, even if the delivery is done through the roll of a die? (Which would be the equivalent of the player coming up with the tactics while the character's skill does the actual sword-swinging, I suppose).

In these sorts of situations I don't generally require the player to actually roleplay their argument unless they want to, but I DO request that they at least describe the argument they are making.

If you're not providing a reason, that basically means you're trying to do this with Charm alone (represented by a high DC), you're just trying to quickly make them like you so much that they'll do something they wouldn't do otherwise.

[Batcathat]

In these sorts of situations I don't generally require the player to actually roleplay their argument unless they want to, but I DO request that they at least describe the argument they are making.

If you're not providing a reason, that basically means you're trying to do this with Charm alone (represented by a high DC), you're just trying to quickly make them like you so much that they'll do something they wouldn't do otherwise.

Yes, that is probably the fairest way of doing it, though I do find it somewhat unsatisfactory. I suppose part of it is the binary, decision-less nature of rolling for it (compared to something like combat, where there are usually quite a few decision points).

[NichG]

I don't see the problem as being whether the players could roleplay their argument or not. The problem is that the players and DM had no way or method to move on after a failure. Even if you use a pure stats based approach, whenever a roll happens it means that both failure and success should be valid options. If the game totally breaks down on one of those paths, that's going to have the potential to create issues no matter what.

[Talakeal]

So, the whole "I roll diplomacy" situation has been a repeating problem at my table for at least twenty years, and is one I have often seen in the forums.

This case was a bit unique though. As I said, I will write up the full session sometime later this week, but in short:

The PCs were in a tomb which they suspected of being a false tomb to hide the real one.

It is a square room about five meters on the side.
The room contains four statues of warriors holding spears and a sarcophagus.
Analysis of the floor indicated it was slightly sloped.
The statues could be turned, but not moved. They show no signs of hidden mechanisms (although the rogue rolled a nat 1 when searching them).
The floor shows no signs of being scratched, but the area in front of the sarcophagus is relatively free of dust.
The walls showed no signs of secret passages and when tapped on did not sound hollow.
The sarcophagus contains the remains of a man in ceremonial golden armor. Though his tomb is labelled as belonging to Sir Daniel, his bones appear to be those of a commoner, and he is posed like he was buried alive and is trying to escape.


So, I expected this to be a very brief puzzle. The answer is that the sarcophagus is on rollers, and there are four bars holding it in place. The statues are connected to them by wired under the floor, and the bars retract when their spears are lowered. Of course, the rogue rolling a 1 to search the statues was a bit of bad luck, as they failed to notice that the wrists were articulated.


But, no matter, I thought, the party has tons of resources, and worse comes to worse they can just smash the place up. Of course, none of them had picks or hammers of any sort, the closest they had was a set of lapidary tools, Shawshank Redemption style.

But, Kim was a master of earth magic, and so everyone turned to her.

Now, at this point she could have done a dozen or more things, but she decided to cast speak with rocks and demands that the statues tell her how to enter the tomb.

I didn't expect this, but it is a cool and creative solution, so I quickly improv personalities for the statues; they are named after the Atlantean heroes they are carved in the likeness of and believe themselves to be the guardians of the tomb, albeit ones who are naive and (if you will pardon the pun) dumb as rocks.

I task Kim's player how they are asking, and they repeat they are demanding they tell her how to enter the tomb.

At this point I have her NPC companion, a con-artist named Valentine, pull her aside in character and explain the basics of persuasion to her, but Kim ignores her and simply demands the statues tell her how to pass more loudly.

At this point I break character and say that its ok if he doesn't want to role-play the dialogue for some reason, but he should probably at least come up with an angle. He tells me he can't think of one, and its unfair of me to ask him how to RP because he doesn't have a high charisma in real life and I don't demand he swing a sword to attack and all the usual, so I sigh and say fine, give me a charisma roll.

And then he blows the roll, and the statues ignore his demands.

And then the PCs say I have put them in another "impossible" puzzle and spend the next hour twiddling their thumbs and everyone (myself included) is bored to tears.

In my experience those situations are kinda tricky, even without accounting for the particular problems of your group, because I feel like its kind of unfair regardless of solution. On one hand, a character should be able to be good at something without the player being good at it (most players aren't great at swinging swords or casting spells, after all) but on the other hand, I instinctively want to reward the player who comes up with an eloquent speech or well-crafted lie while punishing the player who... well, does what your player did.

Though I suppose you were looking for kind of a middle ground, like the player at least coming up with the basic lie, even if the delivery is done through the roll of a die? (Which would be the equivalent of the player coming up with the tactics while the character's skill does the actual sword-swinging, I suppose).

Pretty much this.

I don't see the problem as being whether the players could roleplay their argument or not. The problem is that the players and DM had no way or method to move on after a failure. Even if you use a pure stats based approach, whenever a roll happens it means that both failure and success should be valid options. If the game totally breaks down on one of those paths, that's going to have the potential to create issues no matter what.

Agreed.

The problem is that my players are so married to their ideas that they simply give up after the first failure and assume I am demanding some very specific solution from them which requires "reading the DM's mind".

[Batcathat]

The sarcophagus contains the remains of a man in ceremonial golden armor. Though his tomb is labelled as belonging to Sir Daniel, his bones appear to be those of a commoner, and he is posed like he was buried alive and is trying to escape.

Out of curiosity, how does the bones of a commoner differ from the bones of nobility?

(I suppose a realistic answer might be different signs of wear and tear, but I like to imagine that this setting's nobility have jewel-encrusted bones. )

[BRC]

Ah, it was a Puzzle.

So, first of all, you have the issue of the Search Check Nat 1 kind of blocking off the information needed to proceed. The puzzle wasn't "impossible", but a nat 1 roll locked them out of most of the information they would need, with the most direct path blocked.

I'd actually argue that this was a better use of the "Let me just Roll Persuasion" than most cases, since the communication in question was Via magic spell that let you "Speak" to previously inanimate objects. Such spells usually have some built-in mechanism by which speaking to the thing in question is actually Useful. The idea of giving the statutes personalities is a fun one, and I don't know the wording on that "Speak with Stone" spell, but all things considered, a Persuasion roll as "I'm the one who gave the stones sentience, I can Compel information out of them" isn't unreasonable. It's less Persuasion by argument and more Mystical Force of Personality Compelling The Rocks to Obey.


In such situations, I like to keep in mind the concept of Failing Forward, which is to say that, especially for critical stuff (Like solving a puzzle), the PC's should always get SOMETHING out of making a roll. Give them somewhere else to go.

"With a Nat 1, you have no idea how to open this tomb, short of just smashing the place to smithereens" (Point them towards Smashing the place up)

Or, the Statues might refuse to tell the Players how to open the tomb, but in doing so, reveal that their Spears are the key.


For stuff like this I follow a general rule of "Resources, Rolls, or cReativity"

Which is to say that the PC's can progress forwards either by spending resources, rolling well, or being creative. Using "Speak with Stone" qualifies as both Resources and Creativity, so I'd be inclined to say that they've solved the puzzle right there, or at least earned themselves some guaranteed forward progress.

[Talakeal]

Out of curiosity, how does the bones of a commoner differ from the bones of nobility?

(I suppose a realistic answer might be different signs of wear and tear, but I like to imagine that this setting's nobility have jewel-encrusted bones. )

In short, access to genetic engineering.

snip.

I mostly agree.

Indeed, I did tell them that smashing it up was an option, only to find out not a single person in the party had a tool that could be used for smashing.


Likewise, it was supposed to be a trivial obstacle and I really wanted the speak with stone plan to work, but by insisting it be resolved with a dice roll rather than any attempt to RP, that means that success has to hinge solely on the dice roll. I made that statues both stupid and good natured, and it would have been super simple to trick or convince them to let the party past if they had been willing to try most any apporach.

[NichG]

Given the details, I probably would have had one of the statues attack on a failed roll, leveling their spear in the process, and prompting a Perception/Listen/whatever check to hear something click under the sarcophagus... And if it's destroyed during the fight, or moves off of the base, then there'd be exposed machinery.

[Xervous]

Given the details, I probably would have had one of the statues attack on a failed roll, leveling their spear in the process, and prompting a Perception/Listen/whatever check to hear something click under the sarcophagus... And if it's destroyed during the fight, or moves off of the base, then there'd be exposed machinery.

The statues aren’t animate. The players are being asked to roll persuasion against inanimate, non magical rock.

The obvious side consequence is that bards can probably seduce the rocks.

[Jakinbandw]

So, the whole "I roll diplomacy" situation has been a repeating problem at my table for at least twenty years, and is one I have often seen in the forums.

...

I task Kim's player how they are asking, and they repeat they are demanding they tell her how to enter the tomb.

At this point I have her NPC companion, a con-artist named Valentine, pull her aside in character and explain the basics of persuasion to her, but Kim ignores her and simply demands the statues tell her how to pass more loudly.

At this point I break character and say that its ok if he doesn't want to role-play the dialogue for some reason, but he should probably at least come up with an angle. He tells me he can't think of one, and its unfair of me to ask him how to RP because he doesn't have a high charisma in real life and I don't demand he swing a sword to attack and all the usual, so I sigh and say fine, give me a charisma roll.

And then he blows the roll, and the statues ignore his demands.

So from my angle you did your own version of 'roll diplomacy'. You've said that the statues were friendly and dumb, but you haven't given any reason why they wouldn't give up the information. No obstacle to overcome or think through for the players.

If I don't know what I'm pushing against as a player I'm going to have a hard time being creative. If they didn't want to let the players through because they didn't think they were allowed, then it leads naturally into a deception check, but as it was you gave nothing.

From a game that I'm designing:

"Characters will go along with any goal of a social action unless they have at least 1 specific reason not to"

The goal of the social action was to get the stones to tell the pc how to get through, so in my playstyle the pc should have just succeeded, no roll required as the stones had no reason to hide that information.

Edit: Basically, I don't see anything about you thinking through the stones reason to keep the pcs out any more than the pc thought through theirs to talk the stones into telling them the information.

[BRC]

Likewise, it was supposed to be a trivial obstacle and I really wanted the speak with stone plan to work, but by insisting it be resolved with a dice roll rather than any attempt to RP, that means that success has to hinge solely on the dice roll. I made that statues both stupid and good natured, and it would have been super simple to trick or convince them to let the party past if they had been willing to try most any apporach.

So, I'm curious how you approached this, at a couple points

1) What are the exact rules for the "Speak with Stone" Spell that was used

2) You improvised some personality into the statues. How much of that was made clear before you asked for the RP/ the roll was made?

The key behind the question "How do you convince them" is that you need to know somebody about the target. Previously inanimate Rocks don't have a lot to go on from a persuasion perspective. Even if they're dumb as bricks, what do Rocks want? What arguments might persuade them? I don't know, and I'm over here with plenty of time to think. The best things I can think of is a deception to trick the rocks into thinking we're here to check to make sure the traps are on, or whatever, but the point is, these are Rocks brought to sentience by this spell, so the idea of them having any sort of Agenda to subvert is kind of surprising. You were not WRONG to give the statues the personalities of the heroes they depict, but I could see a player getting off-footed by a sudden request to come up with an argument that would persuade some rocks.

[NichG]

The statues aren’t animate. The players are being asked to roll persuasion against inanimate, non magical rock.

The obvious side consequence is that bards can probably seduce the rocks.

Yeah okay, the fact that the statues identified as guards gave me more Awaken vibes.

I guess the question then is, why would Speak with Stone access a personality according to how the rocks were shaped at all? If you made a stone effigy of your enemy, could you Speak with Stone to interrogate it about your enemy's motives or personality or even secrets? Would recarving the statues let you change their personality?

[Talakeal]

So from my angle you did your own version of 'roll diplomacy'. You've said that the statues were friendly and dumb, but you haven't given any reason why they wouldn't give up the information. No obstacle to overcome or think through for the players.

Yeah, sutbborness does come from both sides of the screen.

Frequently what happens at my table is that if the player's first plan doesn't work, they refuse to try anything else, and I refuse to break verisimilitude / the rules and pull a deus ex machina to let them succeed anyway, and so we end up in a staring contest to see who gets bored first.

Its interesting though, the idea of "role play" vs. "roll play". Like here, the player refused to describe their actions and just wanted the dice to decide and then get stuck when the roll failed. There were several other times in the session where the players detected a trap, failed the roll to disarm it, and then tried to come up with ways to disarm the trap anyway.

Both create awkward situations.

If I don't know what I'm pushing against as a player I'm going to have a hard time being creative. If they didn't want to let the players through because they didn't think they were allowed, then it leads naturally into a deception check, but as it was you gave nothing.

I wouldn't say I "gave them nothing". I told them both OOC and IC that they weren't responding to a blunt demand for answers and that maybe trying to get to know them before either tricking them or hitting them with a sob story might be a better approach.

Stones have long memories, and to those who know how to listen to their low rumbling whispers, contain all the memories of the earth. This spell can be used to hear about interesting events that once occurred in the subject’s presence, and can reveal clues about the nature of the abjurer’s current quest that other means of investigation would never uncover.

1) What are the exact rules for the "Speak with Stone" Spell that was used

Its kind of a custom power, so the write-up is pretty vague and could probably do with a rewrite:

"Stones have long memories, and to those who know how to listen to their low rumbling whispers, contain all the memories of the earth. This spell can be used to hear about interesting events that once occurred in the subject’s presence, and can reveal clues about the nature of the abjurer’s current quest that other means of investigation would never uncover."

Is the text of the ability I gave the player.

From a fluff perspective, I have made it clear that Kim literally talks with rocks. The world is animistic in nature and everything, even inanimate objects and immaterial concepts, has a spirit. What the spell does is translate said spirits "thoughts" into words the caster can understand and vice versa. In this case, I decided the statues were sort of like the paintings in Harry Potter; simple guardians who exist as vestiges of the people they were patterned after.

2) You improvised some personality into the statues. How much of that was made clear before you asked for the RP/ the roll was made?

The key behind the question "How do you convince them" is that you need to know somebody about the target. Previously inanimate Rocks don't have a lot to go on from a persuasion perspective. Even if they're dumb as bricks, what do Rocks want? What arguments might persuade them? I don't know, and I'm over here with plenty of time to think. The best things I can think of is a deception to trick the rocks into thinking we're here to check to make sure the traps are on, or whatever, but the point is, these are Rocks brought to sentience by this spell, so the idea of them having any sort of Agenda to subvert is kind of surprising. You were not WRONG to give the statues the personalities of the heroes they depict, but I could see a player getting off-footed by a sudden request to come up with an argument that would persuade some rocks.

This is pretty much exactly what I told the player at the time.

I said you need to talk to them first to get some sort of grasp on who they are or what they want; they aren't going to respond to blunt demands. He declined and just wanted to skip the RP and "roll diplomacy" and then when the roll failed, got stymied.

[Talakeal]

I guess the question then is, why would Speak with Stone access a personality according to how the rocks were shaped at all? If you made a stone effigy of your enemy, could you Speak with Stone to interrogate it about your enemy's motives or personality or even secrets? Would recarving the statues let you change their personality?

Yes; but all of that is going to take time and the personality of the stone is going to be based on the creator's impression of said enemy (as well as that of the collective unconscious) rather than actually tapping into his mind and personality.

[NichG]

Yes; but all of that is going to take time and the personality of the stone is going to be based on the creator's impression of said enemy (as well as that of the collective unconscious) rather than actually tapping into his mind and personality.

Given lapidary tools, probably I'd mostly just try to change the expression on the faces of the stone statues. Rather than whatever stern 'I'm guarding' expression the original sculptor gave them, I'd try to alter it into some kind of 'I'm miserable/trapped in this role' expression of anguish and go from there.

[Talakeal]

Given lapidary tools, probably I'd mostly just try to change the expression on the faces of the stone statues. Rather than whatever stern 'I'm guarding' expression the original sculptor gave them, I'd try to alter it into some kind of 'I'm miserable/trapped in this role' expression of anguish and go from there.

I don’t mean time to physically make the statue, I mean time for the object’s soul to change to match its new countenance, which could take moments or centuries, depending on how much psychic energy is expended by people thinking about the statue (which in this particular case is, not a lot).

[NichG]

I don’t mean time to physically make the statue, I mean time for the object’s soul to change to match its new countenance, which could take moments or centuries, depending on how much psychic energy is expended by people thinking about the statue (which in this particular case is, not a lot).

A lot of people were thinking about a statue made to be a decoration of a tomb? Those specific statues?

[Talakeal]

A lot of people were thinking about a statue made to be a decoration of a tomb? Those specific statues?

No, not at all. Which is precisely why change comes so slowly.

Their sculptor obviously put some thought into them, and those who passed through the tomb a little but very few people knew these particular statues ever existed, let alone spent much time thinking or feeling about them.

Instead, most of their “personality” was cobbled together over the centuries from the universal concepts of statue, tomb, guardian, etc. as well as the stories about the ancient heroes in whose likenesses they were carved.

Now, intense emotions in their presence could speed up the process, for example if someone were murdered on their spears or if they were venerated as idols, or young lovers carved their initials on them, or if they become symbolic of s9meth8ng important in the mind of a passionate person.


But, this is all really deep lore for my world. For most gameplay, its usually enough to acknowledge that objects have souls and certain wizards can converse with those souls.

[Duff]

In these sorts of situations I don't generally require the player to actually roleplay their argument unless they want to, but I DO request that they at least describe the argument they are making.

If you're not providing a reason, that basically means you're trying to do this with Charm alone (represented by a high DC), you're just trying to quickly make them like you so much that they'll do something they wouldn't do otherwise.

Maybe wording could go like...
GM "At this stage it's a Hard* roll, if you give me a vaguely plausible line, I'll bring it down to Easy*, even a bad line will make it Less Hard, and of course a genius line will make it Very Easy

Be overly generous in rewarding the behavior you want to see and maybe you can help your players become comfortable with speaking in character. It's partly a skill and partly a habit.

* Given your group, you might want to give actual numbers.

[Talakeal]

Maybe wording could go like...
GM "At this stage it's a Hard* roll, if you give me a vaguely plausible line, I'll bring it down to Easy*, even a bad line will make it Less Hard, and of course a genius line will make it Very Easy

Be overly generous in rewarding the behavior you want to see and maybe you can help your players become comfortable with speaking in character. It's partly a skill and partly a habit.

* Given your group, you might want to give actual numbers.

This is absolutely what I do.

The players still clam up and insist and refuse, complaining that I don’t make them do push ups for a strength check, so why are they required to speak for a charisma check?

[icefractal]

On the one hand that's a faulty metaphor - when faced with a combat situation, you can't just say "I fight them all and win the battle ... *rolls* I got a 37" You still have to say who you're attacking with what in what order, and you can't stab someone who's 100' up in the air just by rolling well enough.

On the other hand, these are your players we're talking about, and I doubt they care whether the argument they're making is entirely consistent. And also, if they really dislike playing out conversation even minimally, IDK there's any benefit from making them do so.

[Talakeal]

On the one hand that's a faulty metaphor - when faced with a combat situation, you can't just say "I fight them all and win the battle ... *rolls* I got a 37" You still have to say who you're attacking with what in what order, and you can't stab someone who's 100' up in the air just by rolling well enough.

Preaching to the choir here.

This isn't a new argument, and I have seen it play out at my table and on forums for decades now.

On the other hand, these are your players we're talking about, and I doubt they care whether the argument they're making is entirely consistent. And also, if they really dislike playing out conversation even minimally, IDK there's any benefit from making them do so.

Its not that they dislike playing out conversation. And indeed, I don't require them to "play it out" merely to tell me what approach they are going with. "I try and get him to comply by threatening his son" works just as well as a full on monologue. IMO, actually playing out a conversation is like nicely painted minis, its a frill that can make the game more fun, but is hardly required.

The problem is that my players, for whatever reason, clam up if their first approach doesn't work and preemptively come up with reasons why I might shoot down further approaches and thus don't even try.

As I have said before, I would consider a monster that is immune to fire an obstacle, not a puzzle, while a monster that can ONLY be killed by fire is a bit more of a puzzle. But in my player's case, if their first shot against the former is fire, it might as well be a monster that is immune to everything under the sun because they are not going to try a different approach. I never have quite figured out what is going on in their heads in this regard.

[icefractal]

They really, really hate making mistakes, or even looking like less than geniuses, to the extent that they'd rather assume a situation is impossible than admit they didn't instantly grok how to solve it?

[NichG]

No, not at all. Which is precisely why change comes so slowly.

Their sculptor obviously put some thought into them, and those who passed through the tomb a little but very few people knew these particular statues ever existed, let alone spent much time thinking or feeling about them.

Instead, most of their “personality” was cobbled together over the centuries from the universal concepts of statue, tomb, guardian, etc. as well as the stories about the ancient heroes in whose likenesses they were carved.

I guess what I'm questioning is something like, if no one much really cared about these statues, why would their default personality be something just perfect to act as a tomb guard but also just slowly changing enough that playing on the form-function relationship is beyond PC timescales. As opposed to e.g. the primary spiritual echo being a volcanic extrusion 100000 years ago that gave rise to the rock being on the surface...

Like from a meta sense, why did you decide on specific details which extended the puzzle's challenge compared to other choices you could have made?