Players characters evading direct questions

[glass]

This still doesn't explain why they won't just answer a direct question.

IMNSHO, they didn't answer the direct question initially because they either did not remember, or did not realise it was significant.

Either that continued for the whole scene, or the realised based on your having all the NPCs asking about it that you wanted them to answer it...so they didn't, because they don't trust you and thought you would use it against them somehow.

But, generally, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I try and clarify and ask questions and continue the conversation for long periods of time. I generally assume people are arguing in good faith. For example, a few posts ago, I said I have trouble believing Glass is arguing in good faith, but I actually showed three different people our posts IRL and asked them for a second opinion before coming to that conclusion.

Which three people?

More to the point, I am not arguing in good or bad faith, because I am not arguing at all. I am trying to help you.

[Morgaln]

There is a lot of great advice in this thread. Unfortunately, it is not helpful to Talakeal in the slightest, as it completely misses the actual issue at Talakeal's table.

Talakeal's players don't want to play the kind of game Talakeal wants to play. They don't want to be challenged. They don't want to get into nitty-gritty details on how to make something work. They want to play a power fantasy where they win without breaking a sweat. But Talakeal doesn't enjoy GMing that kind of game, as has been established in multiple previous threads.


When the players aren't interested in the social scenes, all the advice in the world won't help you improve those scenes, as the players will never take an effort. This is compounded by the fact that the group has a dedicated face, as "no one else is comfortable talking in character." That encourages everyone but the face to check out completely during these scenes, as it is "Brian's turn to play." You can mititgate that a bit by not requiring people to actually RP when you know they don't feel comfortable doing so, and just let them give some bullet points on what they want to touch on in a conversation without requiring them to act it out. Or you can continue to insist on in-character speak and be surprised when people react negatively to that.

Ultimately, I think the players have different expectations for what is required to find a solution. For them, "we'll go and ask the Sidhe for help" was the solution to the problem "BSDs are amassing an army." So when they went to the Sidhe, they went with the expectation of "we've found the solution, now we can get to the action." And then you tripped them up by requiring them to work for that solution because for you, just going to the Sidhe wasn't enough, you wanted the Sidhe to be convinced. Of course the players then got frustrated because the thought process was "But we found the solution! Why is Talakeal making this so difficult now? He must not want us to succeed!"
In other words, your players are trying to solve problems on a broader level then you want them to. When you try to get them to the deeper level you want them at, they feel like you're deliberately obstructing them. I've played with people like that, although in my case it was only one player acting like that, so the other players would pick up the slack where necessary. Funnily enough, I've also played in the reverse scenario; I was a player in a group where the GM expected us to solve things on a broader level than we wanted to. Which meant everything was far too easy, leading to frustration as we, the players, felt like we were not challenged enough.

[Kane0]

Of course... this still doesn't address the initial thrust of this thread, which was less to complain about my specific players, but to ask why so many players, both in and outside of my group, refuse to just answer a direct question from an NPC!?!?!?!

In my experience, generally speaking its either down to knowledge or trust. The PCs dont know the NPC well enough to divulge potentially important information, the PCs dont trust the NPC with said information, the players dont know if the information will be useful, the players dont trust the DM to not shaft them, etc etc.

[Jason]

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here.

IMO figuring out the significance of clues and what to do with them is the core gameplay element of mystery scenarios.

I do not consider this to be a misunderstanding, nor do I consider it to be the GM's job.

The GM's job is to give the players enough information about the game world to make meaningful decisions. And then do his best to fairly adjudicate the results of those choices.

If the players do not understand the significance of something, and the characters who live in the game world would have understood the significance, then it is up to the GM to tell the players what their characters would know, before they make any decisions.

Just as it's up to the GM to tell the players what their characters see, smell, and hear because the players can't see, smell, or hear it, a GM must explain to the players knowledge their characters would have about how their world works that the players don't have because they don't actually live in that world.
You can't rely on them being as familiar with how the game world works as you are - in a sense you are the game world.

That still doesn't explain why they don't give an answer though. You don't have to understand the significance of a question to answer it.

If I ask you what you had for dinner last night, you should be able to answer me even if you don't know why I should care. You might have a reason to lie or be evasive or tell me to mind my own business of course, but simply not understanding why I am asking in no way prevents you from answering.

Which means either they didn't really remember or know the answer, or that the players felt that they had some reason not to answer.

Some possible reasons to not want to answer include: they felt the information would be used against them in some way, they felt the person asking was deliberately wasting their time, or they didn't feel like cooperating with someone they were upset at.

I presume that you have some sort of social dice mechanic in your game of choice, right? Charisma checks? Persuasion, diplomacy, gather information, etc.? Right? There is some mechanical way to convince people to do what you want?

Are you telling me that in your game, language difficulties completely supersede these mechanics?

Like, if it would normally be a difficulty 20 persuasion check for me to convince the bartender to tell me the name of the local crime boss.

But, if I only speak dwarven, and the bartender only speaks elven, so I need to rely on a Tongues spell to communicate with him, suddenly the persuasion check is automatic and my social skills don't factor into it at all?

What sense does that make?

Not much, but that's not the example that was being discussed.

A statue isn't a person. Statues don't normally communicate at all, so what expectation would the player have that after using a valuable spell slot he would still have to use a skill roll to persuade the statue to cooperate?

From the player's perspective he wasn't attempting to persuade anyone to give him information - he was using a spell that should reveal an answer. You didn't correct this false impression before he made the choice to expend the valuable spell slot, he was disappointed that the spell didn't simply give him the answer, and then he disengaged from the game completely after he failed the persuasion roll that he didn't think he was going to need in the first place.

If you had acted to correct the false impression before the player cast the spell - "the spell will let you speak with the statute, but you'll still have to convince it to cooperate," then you may have saved yourself and your players 3 hours of wasted game time.

Or you could have decided, "this is the first room of the dungeon. There is no threat to avoid here. They've already made one attempt and failed. The mage is using a valuable resource, I'll just let the statue cooperate without a further roll and we can get moving to the real adventure."

Part of being a good GM is knowing when not to ask for a die roll.

Talakeal's players don't want to play the kind of game Talakeal wants to play. They don't want to be challenged. They don't want to get into nitty-gritty details on how to make something work. They want to play a power fantasy where they win without breaking a sweat. But Talakeal doesn't enjoy GMing that kind of game, as has been established in multiple previous threads.

We have only heard Talakeal's perspective. I don't think we can determine from just his account what it is his players are feeling or what they want.
In fact it seems to me that the root of the problem is that Talakeal doesn't really understand what his players are feeling or what they want. He was asking the forum for possible explanations of a behavior he doesn't understand.

[Talakeal]

If the players do not understand the significance of something, and the characters who live in the game world would have understood the significance, then it is up to the GM to tell the players what their characters would know, before they make any decisions.

Just as it's up to the GM to tell the players what their characters see, smell, and hear because the players can't see, smell, or hear it, a GM must explain to the players knowledge their characters would have about how their world works that the players don't have because they don't actually live in that world.
You can't rely on them being as familiar with how the game world works as you are - in a sense you are the game world.

Sure. But that isn't what happened here.

The PCs know literally nothing about Fey politics or territories. All the knowledge they have comes from children's fairy tales.

Which is why the changelings were asking them what the werewolves were planning; they know the PCs know nothing and are trying to direct them to someone who can help them.

Which means either they didn't really remember or know the answer, or that the players felt that they had some reason not to answer.

It's hard for me to believe that four players would go through an interrogation scene and then forget the information they learned in it the very next scene, but yeah, they is the best explanation I have.

Of course, all the players insist this isn't the case.


[B]

From the player's perspective he wasn't attempting to persuade anyone to give him information - he was using a spell that should reveal an answer. You didn't correct this false impression before he made the choice to expend the valuable spell slot, he was disappointed that the spell didn't simply give him the answer, and then he disengaged from the game completely after he failed the persuasion roll that he didn't think he was going to need in the first place.

If you had acted to correct the false impression before the player cast the spell - "the spell will let you speak with the statute, but you'll still have to convince it to cooperate," then you may have saved yourself and your players 3 hours of wasted game time.

Yep. We both misunderstood the situation.

He misunderstood how the spell worked, and I misunderstood what he was saying and thought he was falling back on his "can we please resolve social interactions with a charisma check" argument.

If either of us had known what the other was thinking, we could have easily rectified the situation, but we didn't.

Still doesn't explain why the other five players were incapable of coming up with a plan for three hours until Brian snapped out of his funk.

[GloatingSwine]

The PCs know literally nothing about Fey politics or territories. All the knowledge they have comes from children's fairy tales.

Then you need to be making sure they learn it before they need it, no?

Because playing with the politics of the fae, the balance in the individual between the courts*, loyalty to house, and how contact with the mortal world causes Banality is kinda the point of playing Changeling.

*Remember, philosophical concepts not places or groups of individuals.

[Quertus]

I'd phrase that much stronger. A group of twelve players, in tabletop, is doomed, full stop. A group that large will not function.

You might be able to get a 12-player group to function for a one-shot or a convention game. No, I would never run a long-term campaign for that many players.

Of course, it may have only been a 12-character group, with some players playing multiple characters or including NPCs accompanying the player characters.

12+ players, 30+ characters - that’s my jam! That’s one of the best ways to play D&D, IME.

Of course... this still doesn't address the initial thrust of this thread, which was less to complain about my specific players, but to ask why so many players, both in and outside of my group, refuse to just answer a direct question from an NPC!?!?!?!

This still doesn't explain why they won't just answer a direct question.

It might be wise, if you actually just want an answer to such a question, a) to only post the question, not the contextual example; b) to read, respond to, and internalize responses to the core question; c) to make posts summarizing these responses, rather than a “only solution a railroad GM will accept”-approved post of, “so are we all agreed that, in this case, we’re looking at X?”.

Senility willing, I’ll dig through this thread and re-post at least my own answers to the purported thread topic.

[Jason]

Sure. But that isn't what happened here.

The PCs know literally nothing about Fey politics or territories. All the knowledge they have comes from children's fairy tales.

Which is why the changelings were asking them what the werewolves were planning; they know the PCs know nothing and are trying to direct them to someone who can help them.

Did the fairy tales tell them "never give a straight answer to any question a changeling asks?" Because that would explain why they wouldn't give a changeling a straight answer.

If either of us had known what the other was thinking, we could have easily rectified the situation, but we didn't.

The best way to know what someone else is thinking is to ask.
"What are you trying to do?" is a GM standard. Often you should be judging a player's intent more than what he states his actions are.

Still doesn't explain why the other five players were incapable of coming up with a plan for three hours until Brian snapped out of his funk.

It sounds like (though I could be wrong) they thought you were going to shoot down any solution they came up with just as you had shot down Brian's, so they all disengaged until you decided you were ready to give them a better clue to find a solution.

I don't understand why you would let the game go for three hours without giving them some additional hint or clue.

[Mordar]

IMNSHO, they didn't answer the direct question initially because they either did not remember, or did not realise it was significant.

Either that continued for the whole scene, or the realised based on your having all the NPCs asking about it that you wanted them to answer it...so they didn't, because they don't trust you and thought you would use it against them somehow.

I guess I am with Talakael on this - if you are willing to go and ask some group of "good" people for help, reason suggests you should be willing to tell them why the "bad" people are "bad", or at the very least regurgitate 20 words on what they are doing that is "bad". And the idea of worrying about the implications of answering a direct question but not worrying about the implications of asking them to risk combat with another force? Come on.

So yeah, this is beyond, and to me it feels like power struggle.

Then you need to be making sure they learn it before they need it, no?

Because playing with the politics of the fae, the balance in the individual between the courts*, loyalty to house, and how contact with the mortal world causes Banality is kinda the point of playing Changeling.

*Remember, philosophical concepts not places or groups of individuals.

What about show, don't tell? How do we most frequently learn about people other than by interaction. This seems to me like a great entree into the Fae world, and really pretty organic.

As far as solutions go, though, I'm with Reese.

- M

[GloatingSwine]

What about show, don't tell? How do we most frequently learn about people other than by interaction. This seems to me like a great entree into the Fae world, and really pretty organic.

As far as solutions go, though, I'm with Reese.

- M

Well apart from the bit where they all get eaten by werewolves before any but one undergo Chrysalis that is.

[Talakeal]

I don't understand why you would let the game go for three hours without giving them some additional hint or clue.

Maybe I was being stubborn? Maybe I was trying not to reward bad behavior? I can't remember exactly was going through my head, it was several years ago.

In general, I am fairly "by the book" and don't like deviating from the printed adventure.

I do remember I spent the time basically begging them to just try things rather than sitting back stymied.

Then you need to be making sure they learn it before they need it, no?

Because playing with the politics of the fae, the balance in the individual between the courts*, loyalty to house, and how contact with the mortal world causes Banality is kinda the point of playing Changeling.

*Remember, philosophical concepts not places or groups of individuals.

That's what the purpose of the scene was, learning about the fey.

Did the fairy tales tell them "never give a straight answer to any question a changeling asks?" Because that would explain why they wouldn't give a changeling a straight answer.

That wasn't something we RPed out in game, so you would have to ask the players. They certainly didn't offer that as a reason why they wouldn't answer when asked.

[GloatingSwine]

That's what the purpose of the scene was, learning about the fey.

What were they intended to learn and what do you think they did learn? From what you've told us so far I suspect they understand the nature of changelings not one jot better than they did before that scene, certainly not enough to think about how they might like to play as one. (A bundle of mortal children is really not what WoD expects. It expects you to be contending with your nature as a member of its various supernatural groups)

[Talakeal]

What were they intended to learn and what do you think they did learn? From what you've told us so far I suspect they understand the nature of changelings not one jot better than they did before that scene, certainly not enough to think about how they might like to play as one. (A bundle of mortal children is really not what WoD expects. It expects you to be contending with your nature as a member of its various supernatural groups)

Why did they publish Innocents if they didn't intend for people to actually play it?

(Unless your argument is that nWoD and oWoD shouldn't be crossed over, but I don't think that is what you are saying)

[Mordar]

What were they intended to learn and what do you think they did learn? From what you've told us so far I suspect they understand the nature of changelings not one jot better than they did before that scene, certainly not enough to think about how they might like to play as one. (A bundle of mortal children is really not what WoD expects. It expects you to be contending with your nature as a member of its various supernatural groups)

Arguably because they popped in, demanded service from each of them, then noped out when asked the simplest question that would have generated what they wanted to happen?

This was a reasonable set-up. How it played out is a different question, but something about horses and water comes to mind.

- M

[GloatingSwine]

Why did they publish Innocents if they didn't intend for people to actually play it?

(Unless your argument is that nWoD and oWoD shouldn't be crossed over, but I don't think that is what you are saying)

Technically none of the World of Darkness properties are intended to be crossed over even within new/old, people have done it since forever but there's visible Frankenstein stitching and bolts because they weren't written that way.

Innocents is intended for playing teen/YA horror with stakes the child characters can approach dealing with, not "rocks fall, everyone dies" or "someone else deals with it for you" which seems to be what you're setting up here.

[kyoryu]

This still doesn't explain why they won't just answer a direct question.

Not directly, but it

Okay, so let's start with kyoryu's rule. People make reasonable decisions based on their goals and knowledge.

Why would someone tell the Seelie what the Fomori are planning?

Well, they would if they wanted the Seelie to help, they had the information, they knew that the info would get the Seelie to help, and they knew that giving the info wouldn't harm them.

We can reasonably safely discount the first one - there were there to get help.

They had the information, but if they didn't remember the info, that would explain it.

If they didn't know the information would get the Seelie to help, that would also explain it.

If they had reason to suspect that giving the info might bite them in the butt, that would also explain it. You know it wouldn't, but they don't. And I'd say based on your descriptions of things that your games have a high tendency to have unforeseen blowback from seemingly innocent actions - at least that's the impression that I get, and I suspect your players would agree. That kind of gaming, even if it's not the case here tends to breed players that are very careful about what they do, since they don't know what is or is not a land mine to avoid stepping on.

So that gives us a few explanations. First, and simplest, is that they just forgot about the attack. If they forgot about it, they wouldn't mention it, even if you told them.

If they didn't know it would help, and especially if they also didn't know it woudn't harm them, they might also be cagey with the info. To them, the attack was effectively irrelevant - they didn't know where the Seelie had a stronghold, and couldn't know. If the Fomori were instead planning on attacking something completely unrelated to the Seelie, would you have been as confused as to why they didn't divulge that info? That's understandable, but if so, that's very much a clue that you're expecting them to make decisions based on your knowledge.

IOW, we can rephrase the quesiton from a few potential POVs of theirs:

1. Why wouldn't they give the Seelie information that they didn't remember? This is obvious.
2. Why wouldn't they give the Seelie information that they didn't think would be likely to be beneficial to them, but which might actually have a higher chance of being detrimental if they gave it out? There's a numbers game here, but it seems reasonable.

I don't think this really helps.

I really like Fallout, and I do think that is a great example of game design. I am well aware of how the game has three paths through most problems, one tailored for each of the three pregens, and it has something I have tried in the past.

But it doesn't help, because three paths the PCs won't walk down (for various reasons) is no better than one.

The point is that when you have to create a scenario with three possible solutions, you tie yourself less to any of them, and often can become more open to the fourth solution.

That may not work for you, but I find it works for a lot of people.

And like, in the tomb, as I said, there were *dozens* of simple working solutions, but when the players bombed two dice rolls in a row, they convinced themselves that the situation was hopeless and didn't try any more.

You should ask yourself why they act this way. It's likely something to do with past experiences and learning from them.

At my table, we don't play word games. I am not going to twist my player's wording. And, at the same time, players aren't able to come up with some giant instruction book written by a contract lawyer.

That's not what I said. This is a very good example of not appearing to try to understand the point.

The point is to search for intent, with the understanding that table communication is low-bandwidth and lossy compared to what's "actually happening".

But, you can't just change your mind and have it ignore instructions or do something else on a whim.

You're taking the instructions fairly literally. I'm suggesting that rather than doing so, you understand the intent of the instructions, and interpret said intent charitably. If the intent is unclear, clarify it. This is because there is a communication gap between all people, the character knows how to interface with the illusion more effectively, and the character has more time to do so.

Like, it I tell a golem to "guard a door" and the monster guards the door, it isn't somehow a betrayal or a twisting of the orders because the golem doesn't of its own volition decide that on Tuesday "guard the door" means "cook dinner" and on Thursday that "guard the door" means "paint the house" just because it would be more convenient for the caster at that moment.

This feels like a strawman.

For example, IRL people are often not great judges of their own behavior, and often claim they would act very differently in a situation than they actually do.

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

But ultimately, I decided that simply giving the order "pretend to be me" being code for "allow me to play the minion as a second PC" just isn't fair.

It makes the spell far more reliable and versatile than it was intended.
It gives the player disproportionate power and screen time.
It creates a meta-game information problem, as you now have to characters instantly passing information back and forth for no in character reason.

Like I said, its like the "wishing for unlimited wishes," its clever and sounds plausible, but ultimately, no, its just not a reasonable command.

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


There was also a quote somewhere about "that's not the GM's job". And I'd really like to address that.

I'd highly suggest you get more flexible on what you think the GM's job is. What's important, having a fun, satisfying game with your friends? Or your definition of the GM's job? If what you're doing isn't working, do something different.

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.

[Mordar]

Not directly, but it

Okay, so let's start with kyoryu's rule. People make reasonable decisions based on their goals and knowledge.

Why would someone tell the Seelie what the Fomori are planning?

Well, they would if they wanted the Seelie to help, they had the information, they knew that the info would get the Seelie to help, and they knew that giving the info wouldn't harm them.

We can reasonably safely discount the first one - there were there to get help.

They had the information, but if they didn't remember the info, that would explain it.

If they didn't know the information would get the Seelie to help, that would also explain it.

If they had reason to suspect that giving the info might bite them in the butt, that would also explain it. You know it wouldn't, but they don't. And I'd say based on your descriptions of things that your games have a high tendency to have unforeseen blowback from seemingly innocent actions - at least that's the impression that I get, and I suspect your players would agree. That kind of gaming, even if it's not the case here tends to breed players that are very careful about what they do, since they don't know what is or is not a land mine to avoid stepping on.

So that gives us a few explanations. First, and simplest, is that they just forgot about the attack. If they forgot about it, they wouldn't mention it, even if you told them.

If they didn't know it would help, and especially if they also didn't know it woudn't harm them, they might also be cagey with the info. To them, the attack was effectively irrelevant - they didn't know where the Seelie had a stronghold, and couldn't know. If the Fomori were instead planning on attacking something completely unrelated to the Seelie, would you have been as confused as to why they didn't divulge that info? That's understandable, but if so, that's very much a clue that you're expecting them to make decisions based on your knowledge.

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

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm going to try to cover some general stuff, without getting into too many details.

Impressive post. I got a few things out of this. (And yes, Covey is right).

My weekly group has fluctuated between 3 and 6 players + the GM over the years, but it's more usually 4 players + GM, and we rotate GMs and games.

About how it works for us.

I I am trying to help you.

As Gandalf said to Bilbo.

In my experience, generally speaking its either down to knowledge or trust. The PCs don't know the NPC well enough to divulge potentially important information, the PCs don't trust the NPC with said information, the players don't know if the information will be useful, the players don't trust the DM to not shaft them, etc etc.

This basic point has been raised on each page of this thread, but it is nice to see it summarized among the longer posts.

A great example was last Wednesday when five priests walked into the room where we had just fought multiple demons and an archmage. I had control of an NPC from the area who was now allied with us, and I explicitly asked as that NPC "Do I recognize any of these priests?" The DM (my brother) had me roll for that, and the roll wasn't good.
"No, you don't recognize any of them."

We, the party, ended up attacking the priests who were actually there looking to help anyone who might have been hurt in the horrific battle which they had heard but had not seen.

The priests were quite vocal in their "we are not your enemy" protests as the arrows sank into their flesh. The various players eventually backed off and my warlock (and the bard) began healing them. We eventually got them to join our side/ally with us against the Usurper...but we had nearly killed all five of them.

I still think that the DM erred in forcing that roll....but it worked out and made for an interesting session along the lines of the "look at the disaster we almost created" flavor. Sometimes, our errors make for an interesting session. We, as a party, messed up by not making more of an effort to parley before the arrows flew. And the DM let us make that mistake, which IMO is good DMing.

Okay, so let's start with kyoryu's rule. People make reasonable decisions based on their goals and knowledge.

While in most cases that is true, the "Loonie" (From the Real Man, Role Player, Loonie, Munchkin model) will often make different decisions for reasons other than that.

You should ask yourself why they act this way. It's likely something to do with past experiences and learning from them.

Indeed.

The point is to search for intent, with the understanding that table communication is low-bandwidth and lossy compared to what's "actually happening".

IIRC, there is a well worn GM tool that goes along the lines of "tell me your intentions and approach first" ... which works in a lot of different RPG games.
I've found that model very helpful when players are scrambling a bit for telling me what they are doing or attempting.

If what you're doing isn't working, do something different.

I had to change how I packaged some of the in world info for my Salt Marsh players because I was running into engagement issues that resulted in a lot of dropped info and, as you say, High Loss in communication.
The player who helped me got me headed in the right direction by getting me to see how we all had different mental maps of the imaginary world ...

[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.

[Jason]

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.

Again, we're only getting the GM's perspective here. That's not enough to lay blame anywhere.

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?".

What if these kids in the past have called the police for help, the police showed up and asked them what seemed like a harmless question, and then when the kids answered it they got in trouble and the police arrested them? They might go to the police for help again if they had no other choice, but you can bet they would be unlikely to answer any question they thought might be another trap.

That's the vibe I'm getting from the whole incident. The players didn't give a straight answer because when they've done something similar in the past it did in fact get them into trouble.

[Mordar]

Again, we're only getting the GM's perspective here. That's not enough to lay blame anywhere.

Given only one perspective is a limitation - I called it out as well - but being compelled to accept the details as accurate, given the situation (we are being asked about it, not asked to render a judgement with real world implications) and the information (which seems fairly straight forward) there is sufficient understanding to lay the blame.

What if these kids in the past have called the police for help, the police showed up and asked them what seemed like a harmless question, and then when the kids answered it they got in trouble and the police arrested them? They might go to the police for help again if they had no other choice, but you can bet they would be unlikely to answer any question they thought might be another trap.

That's the vibe I'm getting from the whole incident. The players didn't give a straight answer because when they've done something similar in the past it did in fact get them into trouble.

Yes, that could make you gun shy. But this isn't a "had no other choice" situation. And even if it were, since these are adults (playing as children) and if you mistrust the GM so much to not even engage with a glaringly obvious question, the only reasonable course of action is to not play RPGs with that GM anymore. And that's what I'd say to a player presenting that issue...but that isn't who we can see here. Instead this feels to me like a player that wants a thing to work the way they want it to and can't (at least in this case) seem to handle even the smallest deviation from how they envisioned the process, so rather than engage in the game as designed, or engage with the GM to advance their goal, they give up. Certainly something I have seen frequently from teens. So my assessment here is, in this small slice of game, if related to us honestly, the situation and NPC response was eminently reasonable and the issue is at the feet of the players.

If I am now told it is always like this and every effort to engage to effect change is met with greater conflict, the only advice is to not play RPGs as a GM with the problem players. If they are otherwise friends, there's lot of great board games, computer games, outside activities, etc to share.

If (as I understand it) there is insufficient desire to stop the RPGing, then the only residual option is to give the players the game they want...low-effort, high-success, rule of cool kind of stuff. I recommend Feng Shui, cinematic swashbuckling games, that sort of thing...where everyone really is on the same side to make cool, splashy action scenes.

- M

[gbaji]

That still doesn't explain why they don't give an answer though. You don't have to understand the significance of a question to answer it.

They did give an answer. They told the Fae about the werewolves in their building. Ok. After re-reading, it was the fomorians in the building, who were attacking the werewolves in the woods (I literlally have no clue about this setting, so whatever), and the are asking the Changlings for help (Are the Fae changelings? Or something else?). Were there werewolves, or representatvies thereof, in this gathering? If not, then why would they think that an attack on someone else would matter? Heck. They may have suspected that if they mentioned that the Fomorians were planning to attack the Werewoves, the folks at the court might have been like "That's great! They'll weaken themselves fighting", or something similar.

The point is that it doesn't matter what I thinik, or what I know about the setting. The point is that the players were the ones playing in your game, and they didn't think that information was significant. How or why doesn't matter. You assumed they would think to provide this information and use it to get help, and they didn't think it was information that would get them help.

You keep asking the quesiton: "Why do players give evasive answers?" I'm reasonably sure your players could post a counter question: "Why do GMs play their NPCs in such an evasive and obtuse way?". At the end of the day, the players intent was to go to the court and get help with the Fomorians. They had a problem. They came up with a solution to that problem. You need to facilitate that process, not hinder it. You lambast your players for not providing the clue "they are planning an attack on the woods", but don't seem to have spent any effort having any NPC actually try to dig this out of them. Instead, you ask one question, they give the same answer, and you have the NPCs say "nope", and we move on.

You have information your players do not. You know the secret code that will get the Fae to help. You know that the info they are providing isn't sufficent, but some other info they have will. You need to guide the players to giving the Fae that info.

If I ask you what you had for dinner last night, you should be able to answer me even if you don't know why I should care. You might have a reason to lie or be evasive or tell me to mind my own business of course, but simply not understanding why I am asking in no way prevents you from answering.

That's not an equivalent question though. Your actual question was much more broad and open ended. It's closer to "Did you have dinner last night?", but if I just say "yes, I did", you shut down the rest of the conversation because you expected me to tell you what I ate, what I had for dessert, the fact that I went to a show afterwards, etc. Most people would expect a back and forth. You ask if I ate. I say yes. You ask me what I had for dinner. Then I tell you. You maybe ask if there was dessert with that. Then I tell you about dessert. You ask if there was anything else going on. I tell you that we went out for a show. You ask what show. I provide you details about the show. And now we've arrived at the information you maybe wanted (that I went to a show, and what it was).

The dialogue is supposed to be a back and forth process, where each side bounces off each other as information is shared. But you seem to be playing your NPCs like they are CRPG objects, standing motionless in a field, waiting for someone to say the right trigger phrase to them, but otherwise doing nothing useful. As a GM, you need to be proactive with this kind of thing. Making the players play 20 questions is not fun for them. When it becomes obvious that they are not providing the "correct information" right off the bat, you need to have your NPCs dig a little.

I am giving Brian exactly what I thought he was asking.

Did he actually ask you to make him roll a die to determine this? Or did he just say he didn't want to RP out the conversation with the statue?

If he had RP'd the conversation, would you have given him the information without requiring a roll? If yes. Then if he says he doesn't want to RP, then just assume his character talks to the statue, and the statue provides the information. Storyboard it out: "Ok Brian. You talk to the statue for a while. It tells you all about what it's like being a stone statue, standing motionless for eternity, but eventually you are able to get it to tell you that there's a trap door and a button hidden on its back that opens it".

Done. Move on.

Saying "I don't want to RP a scene talking to a stone statue" does not mean "I want to roll dice instead". It literally means "I don't want to spend table time, coming up with long tedious dialogue with a freaking rock. Can we just assume I cast the spell and I get the information and we move on?".

You need to know what your player's intentions/desires are out of any given action. Not just the literal words that come out of their mouths. And when in doubt: ASK!

I decided to oblige him and give him what he wanted, letting him resolve the social encounter with a dice roll rather than in character dialogue.

Again. Why? It's a nothing question/answer. Not worth bothering with RP (unless the player really wants to, of course). Just give him the information. He's already having to spend a spell because the rogue failed the search roll, don't punish him further by requiring an additional die roll on top of the spell slot. Just call the spell casting the cost of failing the initial search and move on.

I presume that you have some sort of social dice mechanic in your game of choice, right? Charisma checks? Persuasion, diplomacy, gather information, etc.? Right? There is some mechanical way to convince people to do what you want?

Are you telling me that in your game, language difficulties completely supersede these mechanics?

Huh? It's not about what supersedes anything. It's whether the thing being asked would require a social roll in the first place. I don't require die rolls for normal things people might ask other people, for which there should be no reason not to get an honest answer (actually, I sometimes do, but it's often perfunctory and only done because we play in a skill based game, so I'm giving them a chance to get a skill check). What world do you live in? The one I live in, it takes no special skill check to ask someone for directions and expect to get them in return. Or (to follow someone else's example), ask where the toilet is and get an answer. Or... well... ask just about any normal "do you know where/what <something nearby> is?".

The only considerations here are "can they communicate?" (that's where the language/spell comes in), and "does the other person/statue/whatever know the information?" (and I suppose "Does the other party have a reason to lie or conceal this information?"). If the answer to the first two is "yes", (and the third is "no") then I provide the information to the party. There is zero value to dragging this out, or blocking the party by obscuring it behind a skill roll. Again. If the players want to RP this out, I will do that. But if they don't, I wont make them and I wont punish them for that either.

You seem to have turned this into "You must enter into a RP session with the GM *or* make a skill roll". Which, whether intended or not, strongly comes of to the player like the GM "making me jump through hoops".

The spell specifically states that the illusion is free-willed and that the caster cannot control it directly. It states that when the spell is cast, the illusionist decides the general details of its personality and appearance, including its allegiance and motivation.

The word "general" in there is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Exactly what does general mean? Well, that's up to the GM.

And I disagree 100% This is a free willed creation of the PC (and the presonality is defined by the PC). That means that it should be under the control of the same player who is running that PC. In the exact same way I'd expect a PCs familiar or animal companion to also be controlled by the player. I'm frankly baffled that you would do it the other way around.

You're literally creating more work for yourself and the only possible thing you can accompish with it is to create conflict between you and your players every time you think the creation should do one thing and they think it should do something different. Just... don't do that.

I think modern editions of D&D actually support this style of play. I know in older editions players would try and use air-tight contractual language for spells, particularly Wish and Magic Mouth, but I am pretty sure such things are no longer allowed by either the letter or the spirit of the rules.

You have completely missed the point of my counter point. I don't care about the history of spellcasting and "written contracts" here. I'm talking about the effect of the GM engaging in the kinds of semantic games you are playing. If the only way you would allow Bob's illusion to draw the monsters attacks instead of cower from them, was for Bob to have previously stated exactly what his illusion would do if a monster showed up, then you are requiring Bob to write a contract like description of the spell effects.

Assuming no one actually wants that, the "solution" is to just let the player decide how their illusion behaves. If the GMs ruling is that "anything not excplicitly spelled out will be controlled by me", then the only way the player can ensure that their illusion does what they want is to write a contract. So... Don't do that.

Then you need to be making sure they learn it before they need it, no?

Because playing with the politics of the fae, the balance in the individual between the courts*, loyalty to house, and how contact with the mortal world causes Banality is kinda the point of playing Changeling.

This was why one of my earlier suggestions for handling this (and how I likeliy would have done things) would be to create a "helpful NPC". Someone who is there to bring them to the court, make introductions, provide helpful information, background, suggestions, etc. If the actual situation is "the PCs don't know anything about these people except what they have heard in fairy tales", having some means to provide more information would be helpful. Just throwing them into the environment and asking "what you do you?" is very unhelpful. And said NPC can act as the GMs tool to "give the players hints as to how to handle this otherwise unfamiliar social setting". Also, the GM could literally have a social scene ahead of the court scene where the whole "what are you trying to do, and how are you trying to do it" bit could be played out, and the NPC could straight up tell them "They're not going to help you unless there's a threat to one of their territories. So you should tell them about that information you got from the werewolf you questioned".

Again. Give them the opportunity to come up with this themselves, but if they don't, then just give it to them. Using an NPC like this gives you an "in game" way to do this (if you're adverse to dropping out of character), and can also be used to QnA the PCs (like "Ok, You guys don't want to tell them the info you learned? Why not?"). You can also move the dialogue in that direction by using an NPC the party trusts, whom they might share information with (like say the planned attack) before hand, where they might not volunteer that info to strangers at the court. Basically, you are giving the players a stepping stone to use here, instead of expecting them to immediately leap to the top of a wall.

The best way to know what someone else is thinking is to ask.
"What are you trying to do?" is a GM standard. Often you should be judging a player's intent more than what he states his actions are.

Yup. Ask the players what their intentions are, and how they plan to achieve those goals

As you say: Don't just ask "what do you do/say?". First ask "what are you trying to do?". Then ask "How are you going to try to do that?". Now, you can RP out the encounters, and the players can ask questions, provide answers, etc.

The point is that you can spot flaws in the players plan early in the process by asking these questions. And, assuming those flaws are things their characters might reasonably know are flaws, you can tell them "you are pretty sure this wont work because <game setting reasons>, but trying <alternative> might work" (maybe include an easy lore/knowledge check in there). In this case, if (before playing out the scene) Talakeal had asked his players what they wanted and then asked "how are you going to do this?", he would have realized that they didn't intend to tell the Fae about the planned attack on Muir Woods, and made a decision early on how to handle that. At the very least, he could have asked them why they didn't intend to share that information (and gotten his answer at the beginning instead of after the session). And even if his decision was to not clue them in that the info about the attack might help them get what they want, and he was just going to let them fail, that would have at least saved a boatload of time and frustration.

Honestly? I would have made it like blatantly obvious what the issue was. Probably would have RP'd out a couple of the encounters, and then storyboarded the rest like "Ok. Well, since you have decided not to tell them about the attack on the woods, they are unwilling to provide any assisance with the matter of the Fomorians. Are there any other issues you wish to discuss? If not, then the rest of the evening continues uneventfully, and you return to your homes later that night". And now we get on with the game. Don't drag out social encounters once it's obvious that the PCs are getting nothing out of it. Move the game on.


I guess my broader point is that if you know what the players are doing is dumb, instead of just wondering "why are they doing this dumb thing?" but otherwise just letting them continue doing it, maybe stop the session and ask them? A heck of a lot of at-table problems can be headed off this way. At the very least, you will significantly reduce the number of after-sesison arguments where the players think something should have been one way, and you are saying it is another. You can literally tell them, right then, that your interpretation of things is different than theirs and resolve that before things get to far into the weeds.

There is nothing at all wrong with "breaking character" when running a game, to make sure that the players themsleves are on the same/correct page. In fact, I'd argue you should do this early and often the moment any sort of warning sign comes along.

[Jason]

I guess my broader point is that if you know what the players are doing is dumb, instead of just wondering "why are they doing this dumb thing?" but otherwise just letting them continue doing it, maybe stop the session and ask them?

Exactly.
Chances are that they're doing something you think is dumb because there has been a misunderstanding between the GM and the players, and the quickest way to correct that is to stop play and ask questions to clarify if they understand the situation the same way you do.

There is nothing at all wrong with "breaking character" when running a game, to make sure that the players themselves are on the same/correct page. In fact, I'd argue you should do this early and often the moment any sort of warning sign comes along.

Absolutely.
In fact not doing so is a good way to lose player trust and give them the impression that you are out to get them.

If you routinely punish your players for "doing dumb things" when what really happened is that they didn't understand the situation, then you're the one at fault, not them. Because it's one of your jobs as GM to make sure they understand the situation before you resolve the outcome of their choices.

[GloatingSwine]

They did give an answer. They told the Fae about the werewolves in their building. Ok. After re-reading, it was the fomorians in the building, who were attacking the werewolves in the woods (I literlally have no clue about this setting, so whatever),.

This is one of those "everyone needed to be a lot more careful with their words" things (because it's one of those frankenstein stitches I mentioned earlier where two games on a very similar system were not designed to be plugged together).

Fomorians are the Elder Darks, the gods of nightmares. They wouldn't be a in a building, they don't exist in the physical world, they're trapped in the deepest Dreaming.

The Fomori are possessed humans corrupted by servants of the Wyrm, the celestial incarnation of entropy and destruction run wild. Black Spiral Dancers are werewolves pledged to the Wyrm who are commonly accompanied by Fomori. (Any other werewolves would drop everything to kill Black Spiral Dancers, they're pretty much the worst thing that's not a Vampire as far as the Garou are concerned)

The two are not related in any way.

[gbaji]

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.

Except that's not what they did. They told them what the Formori were doing "in their building", and not about some (seemingly unrelated) bit of information. Imagine this scenario as played out at a gaming table:

A child calls 911 for help.

Child: "Masked men have broken into my house and are holding mommy and daddy. Come help!".
Police: "Ok. What are the plans of the masked men?"
Child: "They're in our house! And they're mean and bad. And they're hurting mommy and daddy. Please come quick!"
Poilce: "But what plans do these masked men have?"
Child: "Why wont you come help? They're beating up mommy. I can hear her screaming in pain. Why wont you help?"
Police: "Well. If you'd just tell us what their plans are, then we might be able to"

(player playing child character): "Seriously? WTF is wrong with these people? This is the dumbest thing ever!"

GM (after the session is over and everyone is upset about what happened): "Why didn't you tell the police that you overheard one of the masked men talk about how they will beat up mommy until daddy gives them the password to his computer, so they can log in and gain access to the secret government site and steal the launch codes for the nuclear missiles?". If you'd just told them that, they'd have rushed right over to help.

Players: Because we didn't think that was significant. We assumed they would want to help us because we are playiing children and they are powerful adults and (good guys) and they would help protect us from the bad guys. You know. Cause we're playing kids, and that's how kids think. You honestly expected our children characters to relate that sort of detailed plot to the police? That's... crazy.

And then the GM posts on an online forum asking about why players don't give straight answers to direct questions and cause game sessions to blow up.


Yes. I get that this is not a perfect analogy (but the Fae aren't police and that's the analogy you used, so goose/gander, right?). The point is that the GM expected the characters to talk about a threat to someone else instead of the threat to themselves when asking for help. That's a fair leap to make and certainly to assume. The GM should have assisted in making that less of one.

[RedWarlock]

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.

Nope. Wrong. Failure. It's still PC-dependent information. THAT makes it the domain of the PC/player, full stop, UNTIL/UNLESS they hand it over to you. It's a mechanic of THEIR sheet, they control it.

Take the hand off the reins and the players will be able to run.

[gbaji]

Fomorians are the Elder Darks, the gods of nightmares. They wouldn't be a in a building, they don't exist in the physical world, they're trapped in the deepest Dreaming.

The Fomori are possessed humans corrupted by servants of the Wyrm, the celestial incarnation of entropy and destruction run wild. Black Spiral Dancers are werewolves pledged to the Wyrm who are commonly accompanied by Fomori. (Any other werewolves would drop everything to kill Black Spiral Dancers, they're pretty much the worst thing that's not a Vampire as far as the Garou are concerned)

The two are not related in any way.

Ah. Which explains my confusion. Not just my lack of knowledge of the setting, but the terminlogy used was incorrect to boot. Got it. So when Talakael posted this:

I am currently running a Werewolf the Apocalypse / Changeling the Dreaming crossover game. Last night, the players had learned that the fomorians were planning an attack on the werewolves in Muir Woods, and were at a changeling ball trying to recruit allies. Unbenownst to the players, the Changelings also have a Freehold in Muir Woods, and would be very interested in stopping such an attack if they new about it. But every time the players asked a changeling for help, they refused to actually tell them what the Fomorians were planning, instead just saying vague things like "they are evil and in the city and are up to no good". Even though half a dozen changeling NPCs asked them directly what the fomorians were planning.

What is the "decoder ring" version? So... we're actually talking about possessed humans working for the Wyrm (I'm assuming this is something evil, right?), working with these Black Spiral Dancer werewolves (whom I'm also assuming are evil), and the players have learned that they plan to attack some other werewolves in Muir Woods (are these othere werewolves good, or evil, or... well... just in it for themselves? Something else?). This also explains my confusion when sometimes it was werewolves planning the attack, and other times werewolves being the target of the attacks. I think maybe I understand a bit better now (I played V:tM a fair bit back in the day, but none of the other WW games, so I get the intrique bits and playstyle, but none of the details or factions/terms being used here).


But still. Key question remains: The werewolves in Muir woods which are the target of the planned attack. Do they have representation in this social gathering they were at (again, pretend I have heard the words "seelie" and "useelie" and "fae" and "changelings", but have little understanding of what those mean other than "some kind of fantasy folks". Actually, don't pretend, just assume). If there were no werewolves or folks who cared about the werewolves at that gathering, or more importantly if the players knew this and maybe even knew that the folks who were there are enemies to werewolves (or merely neutral, or "in competition" with them), then it seems even less likely that they would think that an attack on werewolves in some woods somewhere would be something signifciant to mention to the people who were there. And certainly not information that would get them the help they were after. It would be like trying to get a mafia leader to take action against a street gang because they are planning to attack another street gang. Sure I would probably try this at some point if I'm getting nowhere without it, but I can totally see how some players might not, doubly so for players who have perhaps a history of having information shared without care come back and bite them.


Maybe I'm missinng some key piece of data here (and perhaps the players were as well), but it does really seem to me like Talakeal was proceeding as though the players had information that was contained only in his own mind (the fact that the Changelings have a freehold in the woods and would care about any attack there), and was basically requiring that they use this information to proceed with the adventure. I still kinda see this as the GM knowing that "X + Y = <solution to problem>", and handing X to the PCs, and Y to the NPCs, and just assuming that the PCs would tell the NPCs about X, despite them not even knowing that Y exists, much less that if X and Y are put together it will result in a solution to the problem. They must speculate that Y might exist, and think to provide X, on the off chance that this will help. Again. This is something I think most player groups would eventually get to (assuming it was presented in as clear a way as presented in the post), but maybe not this group (and maybe that's something Talakeal should know and expect given his group's history).

And... even if we assume that the players should have at least tried providing X to the NPCs, we could say the same in the other direction. Was the freehold in Muir woods a secret? Why could the PCs not have learned this information from the NPCs during the course of the evening? Then the PCs would have X and Y, and realize that it might just add up to a solution. Why is the requirement for information flow only going in one direction? As a GM, you don't want to bottleneck adventures, and should avoid them whenever possible. Sometimes, it's a bit unavoidable to at least veer close to a bottleneck (somehow, the two pieces of information must get together for action to happen, so this counts).

But yeah. If that's happening in the game. Treat it like you would a bottle of ketchup. Whack the darn thing until the ketchup flows. Keep the game moving.

[Mordar]

Except that's not what they did. They told them what the Formori were doing "in their building", and not about some (seemingly unrelated) bit of information. Imagine this scenario as played out at a gaming table:

A child calls 911 for help.

Child: "Masked men have broken into my house and are holding mommy and daddy. Come help!".
Police: "Ok. What are the plans of the masked men?"
Child: "They're in our house! And they're mean and bad. And they're hurting mommy and daddy. Please come quick!"
Poilce: "But what plans do these masked men have?"
Child: "Why wont you come help? They're beating up mommy. I can hear her screaming in pain. Why wont you help?"
Police: "Well. If you'd just tell us what their plans are, then we might be able to"

(player playing child character): "Seriously? WTF is wrong with these people? This is the dumbest thing ever!"

GM (after the session is over and everyone is upset about what happened): "Why didn't you tell the police that you overheard one of the masked men talk about how they will beat up mommy until daddy gives them the password to his computer, so they can log in and gain access to the secret government site and steal the launch codes for the nuclear missiles?". If you'd just told them that, they'd have rushed right over to help.

Players: Because we didn't think that was significant. We assumed they would want to help us because we are playiing children and they are powerful adults and (good guys) and they would help protect us from the bad guys. You know. Cause we're playing kids, and that's how kids think. You honestly expected our children characters to relate that sort of detailed plot to the police? That's... crazy.

And then the GM posts on an online forum asking about why players don't give straight answers to direct questions and cause game sessions to blow up.


Yes. I get that this is not a perfect analogy (but the Fae aren't police and that's the analogy you used, so goose/gander, right?). The point is that the GM expected the characters to talk about a threat to someone else instead of the threat to themselves when asking for help. That's a fair leap to make and certainly to assume. The GM should have assisted in making that less of one.

[ASIDE: I picked cops because it was the closest good guys/bad guys option. So yes, we're geese and ganderers]

Totally not my read, and if I have lost the truth of the matter, then I will recuse...but here is the version I see:

Child: "Bad guys live nearby. Come make them go away!".
Police: "Ok. What are the bad guys doing?"
Child: "They're bad! You're good guys. Come get them."
Poilce: "But what what makes them bad guys?"
Child: "They just are. Why wont you help?"
Police: "Well, because you haven't told me why they are bad."
Child: <click><dialtone>

(cop): "Seriously? That's the seventh crank call from a kid this shift!"

Talakael says if they had suggested they had mommy and daddy and were beating them that would have advanced the conversation. But they just went with "They are bad guys and you are good guys, so fight!".

Or did that get revised somewhere along the line? Because if there was a statement about building forces than that opens the next obvious question in the dialog.

Remember, before giving too much credit to the "kids" angle...they then went to bad guys to get them to blow up the building...right?

EDIT because new post:

And... even if we assume that the players should have at least tried providing X to the NPCs, we could say the same in the other direction. Was the freehold in Muir woods a secret? Why could the PCs not have learned this information from the NPCs during the course of the evening? Then the PCs would have X and Y, and realize that it might just add up to a solution. Why is the requirement for information flow only going in one direction? As a GM, you don't want to bottleneck adventures, and should avoid them whenever possible. Sometimes, it's a bit unavoidable to at least veer close to a bottleneck (somehow, the two pieces of information must get together for action to happen, so this counts).

The requirement for flow of information is based on which side is asking which side for help. The PCs had no leverage, so it is on them to convince the Fae to help...and it seems the bar for convincing was low.

But yeah. If that's happening in the game. Treat it like you would a bottle of ketchup. Whack the darn thing until the ketchup flows. Keep the game moving.

100% agree...certainly was an opportunity to have two background Fae discussing having just come from the House in the Woods to ring the bell. Of course, the PCs could have just answered the question as reasonably posed.

- M

[kyoryu]

While in most cases that is true, the "Loonie" (From the Real Man, Role Player, Loonie, Munchkin model) will often make different decisions for reasons other than that.

Nope. Their goals are just sufficiently different that they end up with different actions.

Their goal is "maximize comedy", and their actions are consistent with that.

[Batcathat]

Maybe I'm missinng some key piece of data here (and perhaps the players were as well), but it does really seem to me like Talakeal was proceeding as though the players had information that was contained only in his own mind (the fact that the Changelings have a freehold in the woods and would care about any attack there), and was basically requiring that they use this information to proceed with the adventure.

Even if we assume that the players had a good reason not to talk about (or possibly having forgotten) the information, it doesn't sound like it kept the adventure from proceeding, even if it wasn't in the expected direction.