Players characters evading direct questions

[Talakeal]

Doesn't matter. They're authoritative over their charcter's, not you.

Agreed.

But remember, we aren't talking about a PC here, we are talking about an NPC ordered to pretend they were a PC.

And, just as players are authoritative over PCs, the GM is authoritative over NPCs.

Also, nobody is saying "prevent the players from making mistakes". We're saying "make sure the players understand the situation enough and are clear enough on what the characters would know that they don't do things the characters know would be dumb." That's an entirely different thing.

Pretty sure for a lot of players, half the fun of the game comes from having their PCs do things that would never happen in real life outside of a story that starts with "Florida Man..."

Joking aside, I fully agree here. Pretty sure I said the exact same thing a few posts ago.

This feels like a strawman.

If it is, it isn't intentional.

The point I was responding to was, as far as I can tell, is that because the player hypothetically could have given infinitely complex instructions that account for every possible scenario, that we should dispense with relaying instructions through the GM entirely and simply have the minion be controlled directly by the player as a second PC.


Keep in mind, the scenario that sparked this was an illusion given instructions to act like Bob's PC, which it did without error to great effect for several weeks, but then Bob wanted his illusion, with no direct input from his character, to, of its own accord, act in the exact opposite of the way that his character has acted every single time he found himself in a similar situation.

I think the point of contention is whether or not the GM should allow players come to incorrect conclusions based on correct in character knowledge and understanding.

I think that's fair, but in the "sounding the alarm" case I think it went against the original intent.

Keep in mind, that is a hypothetical based on a hypothetical. There was no "original intent".

Bob wanted me to change how illusions behave so that, rather than pretending to be the thing they are a copy of, they act on the knowledge that they are an illusion and do nothing to conceal that fact.

I responded that, in my opinion, that would create more problems than it solved.

One of the examples of a problem was creating an illusion of a murder victim to avoid raising suspicion, only to have it go around telling everyone that it was an illusionary copy.

Clearly, that is a situation that nobody actually wants to occur!

It was explicitly an example of a stupid problem where changing the rules would hinder the GM's ability to follow the caster's intent.

People then said "Wait, if I make a copy of an enemy, will it be hostile?"

And I said yes, but the GM shouldn't allow you to do it accidentally. They asked why the rules allowed for the possibility at all, and I responded that might be part of some hypothetical scheme with a double bluff, like maybe feigning being captured so that the villain reveals his plans through monologue or unlocks the gate to his lair.

The whole thing was a chain of hypotheticals about avoiding gotcha GMing.

I admit I don't have the benefit (?) of having been involved with these tales of woe before, but there is no part of this issue I don't lie at the feet of the players.

A literal child knows if you call the police for help you need to tell them why you need help. And the police, like the Fae (reportedly, I capitulate) ask the questions is a very direct and simple fashion to elicit the answer that is most important. "You want me to come and arrest (beat up) these people you say are bad. What bad things are they doing?". Child says never mind, cops don't roll. Heck, take police out of the issue and use plumbers. "You want me to come to your house to plumb? What is the problem you are experiencing?".

They weren't expected to come to the Fae and say "Look, these bad guys in my building are planning to attack your secret outpost in the woods so you better come bust them up." The were asked, once they had asked for help, what the bad guys were planning, or what they had done. This was simple JRPG level conversation...the players selected the "Never Mind" response instead of the only other option that was "Here's what we know". They didn't have any need to know that the attack was important to the Fae...this is where they would learn that fact, if they had engaged any more than simply asking a group of randos to come and fight scary monsters for them, and then bailing once they didn't get the answer they *immediately* wanted.

And if we pretend that the PCs have non-WoD genre savvy to worry about Fae creatures and favor shenanigans, what remotely functional brain would think "Telling them a fact I know is *far* more risky than showing up here and asking them for a favor like fighting scary werewolf things, so instead of answering I think I'll ask several more of these crafty critters."

This specific instance if what we are presented is remotely accurate is failure to respond to a normal world situation in anything approaching a normal way. It is not seeking the One True Solution, and whatever the GM's sins of the past, this strikes me as a totally reasonable layout of nodes in a Story (since it is WoD) that lets neophytes learn about and engage with the World of Darkness.

- M

This is basically my understanding of the situation as well. Which is why I am so baffled.