Players characters evading direct questions

[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.

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.

[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!

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 [i]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 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", 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.

And you can expect that, no, most of my groups wouldn't ask that question.

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 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.