Players characters evading direct questions

[Talakeal]

Talakeal, there's a fairly consistent pattern of you making a thread asking for advice, being told where you went wrong, and you digging in your heels and insisting that the people you are asking for advice are simply misunderstanding you and that it didn't actually happen the way everyone understood it from your post.

Ok... I can see where you are coming from. But that didn't happen here.

I am not asking for advice about how to make sure the PCs succeed. I am not really asking for advice at all. I am trying to understand why PCs refuse to answer direct questions from NPCs they have no reason to distrust. Its a phenomenon I have seen in many games, most of which I am not even a participant in, and it always baffles me.

Now, once I have an answer for this, maybe I can implement it into advice for games in the future. But, IMO, the advice of "don't question it, just break character and tell the PCs to give up the info OOC" is not satisfying to me and, imo, will lead to worse games for everyone involved.


The arguments in this thread are, for the most part, almost entirely about my vocabulary (or lack thereof) rather than anything that actually happened in the game.

I mean, I totally get where you are coming from, I admit that I am stubborn and defensive, and that I often refuse to admit I am wrong.

The problem is, in this particular case, as I said in my previous post, this isn't really about right and wrong, it's about a spectrum with no perfect answer. For example, Brian was kind of glum that he was unable to get the Seelie on his side, but he didn't actually get upset until I told him what he should have done. That's the problem... this session I "go wrong" by not holding the PCs hands enough, but next session I "go wrong" by holding the PCs hands too much. There is no one "right way" here.

...the way you described it the first time wasn't correct, and that ACTUALLY what happened was this... at which point people start tuning you out because you aren't being informative anymore...

Did this actually happen in this thread? If so, I missed it.

I fully admit that my summarizing details aren't great, and in an effort to keep my posts concise and readable I leave out details that later become relevant, but I don't think that is the case in this thread? What are you thinking of that was wrong in my initial summary?

Let's imagine the following situation:

A fae talks with the PCs, and the fae explicitly does not know who the PCs are beside "some mortals".

At one point, a PC asks why the fae didn't do X, and the fae decides to lie and says it's because of Y.

Ex:

PCs: "Why didn't you stop Queen Medb's forces from kidnapping the local ruler's son before he was taken to Medb's fairy realm?"
Fae: "it's because my Queen, Titania, forbid us from interfering with the Unseelie's actions toward mortals."
PC knowledge: Titania actively encourages her subject to hinder the Unseelie in any way they can, no matter the reason, due to her rivalry with Medb.

Now, it happens that one of the PCs has the kind of knowledge/character traits/background/etc that would immediately let them know that "it's because of Y" is a complete lie.

Would you interrupt the scene, look at the player whose PC would have the knowledge, and state "due to [insert relevant reason], your PC knows that the fae is lying about this last part, Y would never result in X"?

Yes. But I would say that falls under describing the scene using in character knowledge, not imparting OOC knowledge for metagame reasons.

It's interesting where you draw the line though; like for example, if a player intentionally gives you what you think is a really bad tactical plan, do you step in and warn them because their character should know better even if the player thinks its a great idea?

I also think there's something kind of ironic about objecting to a White Wolf game becoming a collaborative storytelling activity.

White Wolf claims that it is a "story game" but it really isn't, it's a traditional RPG with more emphasis on the social pillar than most of its predecessors.

Though...this is all missing the point, I think. I would be surprised if anyone--Talakeal or any of Talakeal's players--actually wanted to be playing a game where the GM told the players "insert X action if you want Y result."

I totally agree.

Which is why I am pushing back against the idea that the correct way to react to the player's making mistakes is to break character and provide them with the OOC solution as a general principle, rather than something to be done as a last resort when the game is about to go majorly off the rails, which is absolutely did not during the session in question.

The problem was a plot outline that presumed the PCs would do something they weren't willing to do. That problem could be located in any part of that sentence, but something went wrong and everyone got frustrated.

I mean, that is phrasing it in the least charitable way possible for everyone involved, but that is essentially correct.