Players characters evading direct questions

[KorvinStarmast]

You can't hide behind "but people use words imprecisely all the time" if your own imprecision leads you to speak nonsense.

Welcome to the Internet Vahnavoi. An unfortunate number of those who grew up with poor language arts skills, or who otherwise neglected developing those, still show up on the internet and keep making excuses for sloppy and bad communication skills. As the warden in Cool Hand Luke pointed out: "What we have here is failure to communicate." Despite all of the noise there is very little signal.

"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?

See above. There is resistance to accepting that concept. Been seeing it for about three decades. If only September would end.

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."

Depending on the lore, or folklore, one is applying to a game setting, "The Fey are tricksy" is a common basic assumption.

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.

But if you believe in a false definition you can still err.
I see this on occasion in aviation maintenance, where a misunderstanding of a technical term results in thousands of dollars of damage to a part, a damaged or scrapped part, or damage done unintentionally.

"No, it means this {other thing} to me" will not recover that part. That is the stance which you are taking, and it sets you up for error.

The above problem makes writing technical manuals and technical instructions so darned important. That discipline uses glossaries or industry standards that have a Common Language established so that one knows what words mean. (Or terms).

For our discussions here, a Common Language is very helpful (as RAW is in various rules discussions) to make sure that we are talking about the same concept. If you are talking about Budweiser beer, and I am speaking of Pork Rinds, our discourse has a lot of dysfunction in it.

When you take a word that embodies a concept, and you then twist or misapply it, you will - whether you mean to or not - twist or misapply the concept behind it and set yourself up for errors both large and small...in your native language.

It gets a bit rougher when using another language.

[Talakeal]

But if you believe in a false definition you can still err.
I see this on occasion in aviation maintenance, where a misunderstanding of a technical term results in thousands of dollars of damage to a part, a damaged or scrapped part, or damage done unintentionally.

"No, it means this {other thing} to me" will not recover that part. That is the stance which you are taking, and it sets you up for error.

The above problem makes writing technical manuals and technical instructions so darned important. That discipline uses glossaries or industry standards that have a Common Language established so that one knows what words mean. (Or terms).

For our discussions here, a Common Language is very helpful (as RAW is in various rules discussions) to make sure that we are talking about the same concept. If you are talking about Budweiser beer, and I am speaking of Pork Rinds, our discourse has a lot of dysfunction in it.

When you take a word that embodies a concept, and you then twist or misapply it, you will - whether you mean to or not - twist or misapply the concept behind it and set yourself up for errors both large and small...in your native language.

It gets a bit rougher when using another language.

Those are all examples of someone misunderstanding instructions though. That is not the same thing as being unable to come to a correct conclusion because you don't know the proper terms for the thing you are describing.

My conclusion doesn't hinge on whether I choose to call the option with the best risk to reward ratio the optimal path, the most efficient path, the best path, or the whang-doodle-boodle-ga-ga path.

The fact that you acknowledge that people speak different languages imples to me that you already understand this; otherwise it would be impossible for people from different countries to ever come to the same conclusion about anything; and woe to people who never learned to speak at all!

[KorvinStarmast]

Those are all examples of someone misunderstanding instructions though. That is not the same thing as being unable to come to a correct conclusion because you don't know the proper terms for the thing you are describing.

Go ahead and dig in your heels.
If we go from page 1 to now, we see the usual pattern emerging.
I don't know if anything that was posted in the past few pages will help you at your table, but I hope that some of it does in your future sessions. Happy Gaming.

[kyoryu]

Go ahead and dig in your heels.
If we go from page 1 to now, we see the usual pattern emerging.
I don't know if anything that was posted in the past few pages will help you at your table, but I hope that some of it does in your future sessions. Happy Gaming.

An interesting exercise is to take the behavior seen here, assume it is seen at his table (a reasonable assumption), and ask if there is a reasonable explanation that just requires that Talakeal behaves the same way at his behavior that he does in this forum.

I... think there is.

[Talakeal]

Go ahead and dig in your heels.
If we go from page 1 to now, we see the usual pattern emerging.
I don't know if anything that was posted in the past few pages will help you at your table, but I hope that some of it does in your future sessions. Happy Gaming.

Insisting that someone's argument is wrong because they used the wrong terminology to describe it is the textbook example of a semantic argument.

I will dig in my heels about having semantic arguments with random people on the internet is pointless. And yes, I agree, such pointless arguments will do nothing to help me at my table.



I didn't post this thread because I was having a gaming horror story and needed help with my game; I posted it because I noticed a trend of players screwing themselves over by refusing to answer direct questions from NPCs whom they have no reason to distrust and then not being able to explain why they did so. My players were mildly frustrated that they failed at their objective, but there was no big drama or anything, and it allows the game to go on in an interesting direction rather than following my script, so what is the problem?



Now, the broader issue which this thread has degenerated into (as many of them do) boils down to the spectrum with the "killer GM" on one side and the "railroad GM" on the other; don't hold the PCs hands enough and they will get frustrated because they are losing but hold their hands to much and they will get frustrated from a lack of control. And the problem is, that exactly where this line is very hard to gauge, as players have different preferences, and even the same player's preferences change based on the situation and their current mood. And, when you have 3-8 players at the table, it is often the case that there is no right path, because one person's tolerance for "killer GMing" and another person's tolerance for "railroading" may actually overlap!

An interesting exercise is to take the behavior seen here, assume it is seen at his table (a reasonable assumption), and ask if there is a reasonable explanation that just requires that Talakeal behaves the same way at his behavior that he does in this forum.

I... think there is.

Can you explain to me what exactly this behavior is?

Because AFAICT its just Vahnovoi making a big deal over the language I used and me telling him that arguing on the basis of semantics alone is bullcrap and he needs to actually attack my argument itself rather than the terms I use to explain it. And no, I can't recall that ever happening at my table.

[Keltest]

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. Its also fairly common to poke at your story and have you explain that no, 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.

If your game sessions are even remotely like this, its no wonder everyone is so miserable all the time. Nobody can talk to each other or understand anything!

[Unoriginal]

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.

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"?

[Kish]

I also think there's something kind of ironic about objecting to a White Wolf game becoming a collaborative storytelling activity. 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, after which you will get Y result, and then you..."

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.

[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.

[Quertus]

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 want to revisit this, because my first response reads like a false dichotomy to me. *I* knew what I meant, but, from my words, y'all might not.

Because of their belief in the Goodness of Superman, a Child tells him about the Evil Aliens doing the Evil Thing involving Pod People right now in his apartment building.

Response 1

Superman: "Of course I'll help you."

Child:

Superman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Odd question, I feel you lack a sense of urgency here...

Child: "Sure, they're planning on using the Pod People to Rob the Bank."

Superman was helpful, so the child would respond, but I would feel that something was off at Superman asking this question.

Response 2

Superman: "Of course I'll help you."

Child:

Superman: Picks up Child, flies (in direction Child is pointing, presumably). "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Huh. This Superman is bigger on Child Endangerment and Planning than I expected. I wonder if there's mechanics in this system that make this behavior expected.

Child: "Sure, they're planning on using the Pod People to Rob the Bank."

Superman was helpful, so the child would respond, but I would feel something was off in the writing.

Response 3

Superman: "Of course I'll help you."

Child:

Superman: "Bats, can you..." Flies off (presumably in direction Child is pointing).

Batman: Looms over Child

Child:

Batman: Bends down to child's level. "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Nicely done.

Child: "Um... sure? They're planning on using the Pod People to Rob the Bank."

Superman was helpful, Batman tried not to be too intimidating, so the child would respond; everyone was fairly in character (if perhaps a bit smarter / better at planning than usually portrayed), so I'd feel this made sense.

Response 4

Superman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Where the **** did that come from? [Is Superman's player metagaming to figure out what the rest of the module looks like? // Who wrote this module? // is this supposed to be a hint that Superman is a Pod Person? // insert other hypothesis here]

Child: "Um..."

Child: [ "They're in my apartment right now, turning people into Pod People" // "... sure? They're planning on using the Pod People to Rob the Bank." // {Loses faith in Superman}]

Superman hasn't committed to being helpful, so the child may or may not respond (may just repeat their initial request, thinking perhaps Superman misheard / didn't understand / however they rationalize it); a more savvy individual certainly wouldn't respond. I would find this sequence equivalent to "Help, my house is burning down!" "Do you know where the fire is going?", and be metagaming whether this is supposed to sound this stupid in character, or whether it's just a product of bad writing.

Response 5

Superman: "Not my problem."

Me: What the... who wrote this module? Is it someone sane, and this is a hint / neon sign that Superman is a Pod Person, or is it just bad writing?

Child: Loses faith in Superman

Superman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Yeah, no, definitely a Pod Person.

Child: ---

Batman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Child: I need an adult.

Echoes from dozens in the Justice League: "Do you know what they're planning? Do you know what they're planning? Do you know what they're planning?"

Child: Has mental breakdown.

This only works as a horror story where the entire Justice League is already Pod People.

-----

Note how, in 2&3, when Superman has already agreed to help, and is already in the act of (moving towards) solving the problem, does the question actually make sense to ask.

Ask yourself, if your house was on fire, when would you feel it was OK for someone to ask, "Do you know where the fire is headed?", and apply it to this situation. If you're anything like me, about the only time it doesn't feel really wrong is when the other person has already agreed to (work to) put out the fire. (I say "about" because you could pull it off with a, " wait, do you live near the fertilizer plant?" realization from the speaker or something similar.)

In short, yes, in every scenario, asking "do you know where the fire is going?" is suss; only in the most reasonable of scenarios, where you've built up believable characters, and a conversation into which you can dovetail that question with the utmost care, does it not ruin any chance of coming off as normal, sane, human conversation.

Not that the Fey in this example necessarily have to talk like humans, of course, but people's reactions to them OTOH will likely take into account this deviation from human norms.

[icefractal]

Response 4

Superman: "Do you know what they're planning?"

Me: Where the **** did that come from? [Is Superman's player metagaming to figure out what the rest of the module looks like? // Who wrote this module? // is this supposed to be a hint that Superman is a Pod Person? // insert other hypothesis here]

I feel like you have weirdly high standards for "not a pod person" 😝

Like, the situation the PCs presented didn't have such incredible urgency, and even if it did, the fey can't respond at superman speeds anyway - compared to the multiple days it will take to muster up forces, scout the fomori, and launch an attack, a few extra minutes to have more info about the situation seems well spent.

But also, why is the example with Batman the "good" one? Because Superman is springing into action with zero delay while a second person asks the questions? But ...
* Probably Superman can beat the pod people just fine even with a small delay, and reverse the process (and if he can't reverse it, then multiple people are likely already gone in the time the child took to find Superman).
* If the pod people *are* so powerful no delay can be made, then Batman being late could also be disastrous.

[Reversefigure4]

Broadly speaking, it's because the players have less clarity than their characters.

For the character, the details of the werewolf interrogation that happened four hours ago in game time is pivotally important.

For the player, the werewolf interrogation happened two weeks ago in the previous session, and they're devoting more portions of their brain to "Does that girl at the donut shop like me?" or "the Smith project is due on Tuesday" or "need to remember to pick up milk", all more relevant details to their real life. It's MUCH easier for the GM sitting there with a pile of notes and knowledge of the "right" answer than it for players to remember and work out what direct answer they should be giving, so what's obvious to the GM is not obvious to the players.

It's a minor issue easily resolved with some basic GM questioning or reminders, but in Talakeal-land the issue is heavily compounded by:
1) The players don't like social scenes and NPC and like playing powerful characters, but are instead in a campaign where they are literal children heavily embroiled in Fae politics.
2) The players don't care (probably related to 1), are paying very limited attention and would rather be on their phones. They likely haven't even -heard- the detail about Muir Woods, let alone later remembered it AND connected that -that- is the information specifically that needs giving as opposed to other details.
3) Talakeal likes odd puzzles with specific non-obvious solutions, and in this case requires the Muir Woods password specifically to get the Fae aid, but is unwilling to directly communicate with players about it.
4) Even if he did communicate successfully, since the players heavily distrust Talakeal, directly telling them "You should tell the Faye about Muir Woods, since it's one of their holdings" will result in the players assuming it's a trick and not doing it intentionally.

At most tables, getting players to answer direct questions from NPCs is a trivial problem. At a Talakeal table, it was an unsolvable problem from the instant the campaign began.

[Talakeal]

Broadly speaking, it's because the players have less clarity than their characters.

For the character, the details of the werewolf interrogation that happened four hours ago in game time is pivotally important.

For the player, the werewolf interrogation happened two weeks ago in the previous session, and they're devoting more portions of their brain to "Does that girl at the donut shop like me?" or "the Smith project is due on Tuesday" or "need to remember to pick up milk", all more relevant details to their real life. It's MUCH easier for the GM sitting there with a pile of notes and knowledge of the "right" answer than it for players to remember and work out what direct answer they should be giving, so what's obvious to the GM is not obvious to the players.

It's a minor issue easily resolved with some basic GM questioning or reminders, but in Talakeal-land the issue is heavily compounded by:
1) The players don't like social scenes and NPC and like playing powerful characters, but are instead in a campaign where they are literal children heavily embroiled in Fae politics.
2) The players don't care (probably related to 1), are paying very limited attention and would rather be on their phones. They likely haven't even -heard- the detail about Muir Woods, let alone later remembered it AND connected that -that- is the information specifically that needs giving as opposed to other details.
3) Talakeal likes odd puzzles with specific non-obvious solutions, and in this case requires the Muir Woods password specifically to get the Fae aid, but is unwilling to directly communicate with players about it.
4) Even if he did communicate successfully, since the players heavily distrust Talakeal, directly telling them "You should tell the Faye about Muir Woods, since it's one of their holdings" will result in the players assuming it's a trick and not doing it intentionally.

At most tables, getting players to answer direct questions from NPCs is a trivial problem. At a Talakeal table, it was an unsolvable problem from the instant the campaign began.

This is probably the best answer I am going to get, and its mostly correct.

Although I will say that its not quite as bad as you are making it, for example it was less than an hour between the interrogation and the changeling encounter OOC, and as I said above it was not the only solution, it was merely the easiest; talking to the selkies or asking about the mysterious glade in golden gate park would have lead down the same path for example.

As for #3, I still don't know how to present obstacles so they don't come across as puzzles, either at the table or online. It is never my intent to have a puzzle with only a single solution, but for some reason it always comes across that way even though I can't think of a time when that was ever literally the case. Outside of a few printed modules; those are full of stupid mono-solution puzzles.

[Quertus]

I feel like you have weirdly high standards for "not a pod person" 😝

When I know that there are Pod People, my standards are “does not behave as expected” including “does not behave like a Human”. Which, of course, neither Superman nor the Fey are human, which is part of the joke.

In this case, responding to “my house is on fire!” with “do you know where the fire is headed?” sufficiently violates human social norms to trigger the “Pod People” red flags.

But also, why is the example with Batman the "good" one? Because Superman is springing into action with zero delay while a second person asks the questions? But ...
* Probably Superman can beat the pod people just fine even with a small delay, and reverse the process (and if he can't reverse it, then multiple people are likely already gone in the time the child took to find Superman).
* If the pod people *are* so powerful no delay can be made, then Batman being late could also be disastrous.

The “good” one, really, is just “Superman springs into action without asking stupidly out-of-character questions”. But, in order to make the best possible scenario in which the question actually gets asked? I played around with a few, and actually found one I could accept: where the “great detective” did, you know, detective work, while the Big Blue Boyscout murderhobo went and punched evil faces.

[Kish]

Although I will say that its not quite as bad as you are making it, for example it was less than an hour between the interrogation and the changeling encounter OOC, and as I said above it was not the only solution, it was merely the easiest; talking to the selkies or asking about the mysterious glade in golden gate park would have lead down the same path for example.

As for #3, I still don't know how to present obstacles so they don't come across as puzzles, either at the table or online. It is never my intent to have a puzzle with only a single solution, but for some reason it always comes across that way even though I can't think of a time when that was ever literally the case. Outside of a few printed modules; those are full of stupid mono-solution puzzles.

Multiple dialogue options that lead down the same path still only counts as one solution. If you want to avoid railroading you need to have diverse options such that "I'm not willing to reveal anything to these fae" is "okay, you're not taking that option, so you'll be taking one of the other options," not just a more expansive dialogue tree.

(Also: Talking to the selkies is one of the options that would have worked? Really? Not saying specific words to them, just talking to them? "Hello"->"Yes the Seelie Court will help you attack these werewolves"? If only some fae were looking for specific words then...that actually makes it sound even more like a puzzle. "You can say specific words to the fae who are actively trying to talk to you, or figure out which fae who are not actively trying to talk to you you should actively try to talk to." It sounds like the rogue tutorial in Neverwinter Nights: "To get the key, you can pick the lock on this door, or disarm the trap on this chest, or convince this loyal-but-dumb orc to give you the key he has.")

[Talakeal]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

Multiple dialogue options that lead down the same path still only counts as one solution. If you want to avoid railroading you need to have diverse options such that "I'm not willing to reveal anything to these fae" is "okay, you're not taking that option, so you'll be taking one of the other options," not just a more expansive dialogue tree.

The are trying to diplomatically win over allies among the Fey in their battle against the werewolves. I mean, yeah, I guess they could theoretically do so without dialogue, but is that rally something I need to explicitly plan for ahead of time rather than just winging it if it happens to come up?

(And remember, getting the Seelie as combat allies isn't something they are being forced into either. There are numerous ways to solve the problem. And there are numerous allies whom the players can turn to.)

Also: Talking to the selkies is one of the options that would have worked? Really? Not saying specific words to them, just talking to them? "Hello"->"Yes the Seelie Court will help you attack these werewolves"?

No, obviously not. But the Selkies already have diplomatic ties to the Seelie, the Shapechangers, and the Nunnehei, and are going to be a lot better at coordinating an alliance between them than the random Seelie nobles would be and could certainly help point them in the right direction even without knowing exactly what the Black Spiral Dancers are planning or why the children want to get the Fey involved.

[icefractal]

In this case, responding to “my house is on fire!” with “do you know where the fire is headed?” sufficiently violates human social norms to trigger the “Pod People” red flags.

So ... if you completely change the scenario, the correct answer changes?

Because the original scenario is more like "there's a terrorist cell operating out of my apartment building's basement" - if you told the FBI that, you're probably hoping they don't just immediately rush in guns blazing, because that's likely to result in a lot more bystander deaths than a careful operation.

Even pod people - if you rush in and smash the local operation immediately, you might not find the mothership and thus end up losing hundreds of abducted people you could have rescued with a little more care taken.

But fire - yes, fire should be dealt with ASAP, and doesn't really benefit from info-gathering. Which is a different scenario you didn't mention until this most recent post.

IDK, I'm surprised because I thought your general approach was to avoid trope-driven mistakes, and "rushing into action immediately without doing any preparation or telling anyone else" is a pretty classic one.

[Keltest]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

Well for one, it is the DM's job to keep track of all the information as the worldbuilder. But more directly, if the players don't remember something... then they don't remember it. They definitionally can't tell you what they don't know because they don't know it!

[Telok]

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

Because you're posting. About something that isn't a perfect d&d game played exactly like other people want you to.

[Quertus]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

Don't engage, don't engage, don't... dang it, I failed my Will save!

So, if you ask me, in this scenario, I wouldn't say you're at fault for not forcing the issue; if anything, I'd say you're at fault for forcing the issue, by having all the Fey keep trying to pry the information out of the PCs. But I won't fault you for that, because you had multiple ideas you'd accept for the PCs goals of get the Fey on board, which sound fairly reasonable to my ears, and were trying to get the Players to make their own plan work.

What I might fault you for, though, is not spending the 30 seconds to 2 minutes with an OOC Sanity Check, the moment the Players mentioned their idea, if you didn't see how the PCs had a workable plan: "OK, so you want to meet with the Fey to get their aid, but how are you planning to get them to help?". That simple touching base whenever you're confused helps games run smoothly.

Alternately, I'd fault you for for not being confused by the Players' declared intentions of meeting with the Fey, if you didn't see how that wasn't something with a clear path to victory -> the Players likely misunderstood something.

-----

All that said, in the general case? The GM is the eyes and ears of the characters, they are the interface between the game world and the Players. There is IMO no responsibility they have greater than ensuring as seamless an interface as possible. And, at times, this includes making sure the Players remember or understand things that their Characters certainly would.

IMO, the "optimal" (internet word) implementation of that isn't to try to "railroad" (internet word) information into the Players, but to ask genuine questions, and, if the response shows an invalid game state exists in the Players' minds, then fix that game state, so you're both / all on the same page.

Clear as mud?

So ... if you completely change the scenario, the correct answer changes?

Because the original scenario is more like "there's a terrorist cell operating out of my apartment building's basement" - if you told the FBI that, you're probably hoping they don't just immediately rush in guns blazing, because that's likely to result in a lot more bystander deaths than a careful operation.

Even pod people - if you rush in and smash the local operation immediately, you might not find the mothership and thus end up losing hundreds of abducted people you could have rescued with a little more care taken.

But fire - yes, fire should be dealt with ASAP, and doesn't really benefit from info-gathering. Which is a different scenario you didn't mention until this most recent post.

IDK, I'm surprised because I thought your general approach was to avoid trope-driven mistakes, and "rushing into action immediately without doing any preparation or telling anyone else" is a pretty classic one.

Saying "fire" is more urgent than "Pod People" is suss - you must be a Pod Person.

I've been using "fire" as an example for a bit now. The secret point of the fire was actually not an inherent property of its urgency (although perhaps could be derived from that), but that, in the case of a fire, it should be easier to see how a) someone could consider that "not their problem"; b) someone - especially but not exclusively a "not my problem" person - could care very much if the fire is likely to spread to, for example, the Fertilizer Factory (kaboom!) or to something they do care about. But even with that being easier to understand, the transition from "My home is on fire, please help!" to "Do you know where the fire is heading?" feels rather jarring, and not like something a Real Boy (TM) would say.

But, sure, we can use your example of a "reporting a terrorist cell". It brings in its own baggage, so I'll poke at that baggage, too.

If I'm reading a spy thriller in which a child tells an FBI agent (or a Police Officer) about a Terrorist Cell in their complex, and the 1st line out of their mouth is, "do you know what they're planning?"? I'll likely read it in a very patronizing voice, assuming the officer doesn't even believe that they're real / assuming that the child is playing a game, or has misunderstood something.

But fine. Let's say that the child brings the PO irrefutable evidence, like 2 quarts of nitroglycerin or something.

Eh, I have to build up to this, I have to explain where I'm coming from.

If I see a bank robbery in progress, and tell the nearest person I can find about it, and they say, "do you know what they're planning next?", my thought process will be, "they're in on it, they're trying to find out if they can afford to let me live".

In the specific example under discussion in this thread, the chain of events was "not my problem" followed by "do you know what they're planning?".

With me on the color pallet I'm looking at?

So, in this context, when I see a "neutral" telling of "a child plopped several liters of nitroglycerin down in front of the PO, requested help with the Terrorist Cell in their apt basement, and the PO asks, 'Do you know what they're planning' without first acknowledging that they'll help"? I have to step back from my color pallet enough to say, "OK, the PO could just be in shock that they survived the child bringing that much nitro into the police station, handling it so roughly, and surviving all the way here with that approach, that their mind is mush, and they just incredulously skipped over the social niceties and went straight to that step". Because, based on my experience talking with the fuzz, even they will at least hint that they're on your side before probing for information, especially if the person they're talking to is clearly leery or recalcitrant. In other words, even for your example, IME, this chain of events makes absolutely no sense.

Which was also part of the point of Superman, someone known to go punch evil in the face, without really planning things very well. It's not "trope", it's "roleplaying".

Now, it gets tricky what we're discussing at any one moment, whether it's the PoV of children who were expecting Superman, and how their reaction could make sense in that context, or me playing an RPG, or me IRL. But, yeah, there's very few situations where I'd expect social norms to allow a "do you know what the next step looks like?" query to go uncontested from someone who hasn't offered help, and the example of 'there's a fire' is one of the strongest contenders for that being an acceptable line of thought.

[Unoriginal]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

A player should absolutely say they forgot... but they need to remember that they forgot something to be able to do that.

Like, the difference between:

Player: "How about we ask... dang, forgot his name, you know, the thieves' guild Celestial expert guy? We met before that mission at Castle Redgrave, when they told us."

GM: "Renald the Radiant?"

Player: "That's the one, thanks."

And:

Player: "Dang, no one in the group know about those Celestials, and none of our allies do either. Guess we'll have to go fish for info somehow. Let's start by the library."

GM: "Well, your PC would remember you met an expert on the topic. Renald the Radiant, of the thieves' guild."

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

What you don't get is that it's not a question of "forcing the issue". No one is forcing anything.

To continue the example above, if the player goes "Oh yeah, that guy. He could likely answer our questions, but then the thieves' guild would also know we're going to do something related to the Celestials, and them getting involved is even scarier than going into the situation blind. I vote we search for a different source of info", then the GM should just say "fair" and move on (unless the player forgot or misunderstood something else, of course).

No one is forcing anyone or anything.

It's just that sometime you need to remind the players of a path that could be taken, then the PCs wouldn't have forgotten it. What they decide to do afterward is still just as up to them as before.

[Reversefigure4]

Well for one, it is the DM's job to keep track of all the information as the worldbuilder. But more directly, if the players don't remember something... then they don't remember it. They definitionally can't tell you what they don't know because they don't know it!

Ding! We have a winner. People cant tell you what they don't know. And in this case the players are literally telling you "this problem seems unsolvable" when the characters already know the answer, but the GM - who knows they know - won't tell them what it is, even though the GM is the eyes and ears of the characters?

Players are sorting through likely several relevant looking details - (examples only) the werewolfs prisoner name is Howlfang, he fears fire, the attack is at Muir Woods, the attack is on Tuesday, the attack involves blood magic, the werewolves target is children, the purpose of the attack is to kidnap rather than kill, the werewolves have moved here recently from Canada, their leader has one eye and tells no-one about his past, and the werewolves live in a cave in Fang Forest.

What tells me as a player that "Muir Woods" is the more relevant keyword compared to the other dozen details?

I've run lengthy, complex Call of Cthulhu campaigns. Players are largely attentive and interested the whole time. They take notes (ending the campaign with 50+ pages of them!). They keep a clue book with handouts in it. They strategize. I'd consider them highly intelligent. But they -still- make mistakes, like the above "kill the duke instead of the baron" example, or mixing details of an event in Cairo with one in London to draw an invalid conclusion. And it's a 10 second problem to solve when I-as-GM-with-better-information say "Do you mean the Duke? You have no reason to kill the Baron" or "actually, your characters discovered the London cultists didn't seem to care about star movements".

[Batcathat]

Players are sorting through likely several relevant looking details - (examples only) the werewolfs prisoner name is Howlfang, he fears fire, the attack is at Muir Woods, the attack is on Tuesday, the attack involves blood magic, the werewolves target is children, the purpose of the attack is to kidnap rather than kill, the werewolves have moved here recently from Canada, their leader has one eye and tells no-one about his past, and the werewolves live in a cave in Fang Forest.

What tells me as a player that "Muir Woods" is the more relevant keyword compared to the other dozen details?

True, but I'm not sure it's relevant in this case. If I understand the situation correctly, the party refused to reveal pretty much any information about the problem. Now, if they had decided to reveal more but didn't mention Muir Woods in particular (whether because they forgot about it or didn't think it was important), then it seems reasonable for the GM to remind them or at least hint heavily at it, I think.

[Unoriginal]

True, but I'm not sure it's relevant in this case. If I understand the situation correctly, the party refused to reveal pretty much any information about the problem. Now, if they had decided to reveal more but didn't mention Muir Woods in particular (whether because they forgot about it or didn't think it was important), then it seems reasonable for the GM to remind them or at least hint heavily at it, I think.

The players claim they didn't reveal any information because they didn't think it was relevant, but it's an after-the-fact claim.

Asking them "is there a reason why you're not answering the question?" at the time could have made a difference, at least in OP's understanding of the situation.

[Kardwill]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

I just don't get why I am the one at fault for not forcing the issue.

As a GM, you have a perfect, complete vision of what happened, what is happening, what will probably happen, every character, every event, and, most importantly, what is important and what isn't, and how things are connected

As a player, I just don't know what details I'm supposed to remember. I'll remember only part of an information. I'll mix characters and places. I'll forget the description of the villain. I'll forget that you said there is a red carpet in the bedroom. I'll not pay attention to that long list of titles of the sidhe lord because they're probably not that important, right?

- So I won't randomly ask the GM to repeat the complete description of every NPC in the game, just in case it's important. And I probably won't notice that the Mysterious Stranger I just met fits the description of Lord Alexander Ravenwald that I met last game, unless the GM lays it out really thick, or simply says "That guy really looks familiar, by the way." if it's just a hint to get me thinking and check my notes, or "You can't see his face, but he has those long blue-black hairs of the Ravenwald family" if it's important that I remember.

- And when I say I'm checking the walls for secret doors in the bedroom where someone got murdered, the GM, who knows the red carpet is hiding a trapdoor, could remind me of its existence, either in a new description ("you put the painting down on the red carpet in the middle of the rooom") or simply by asking "do you check under the carpet, too?"

- And when I talk to the seelies, the GM could say "The tall sidhe present himself as the Lord Protector of Muir Wood", or even, if I'm not reacting to that name, "Muir Wood... It takes you a few seconds to realise that it may be the same place that the Dancers are about to attack"


The players hear LOTS of things over the course of the game, but only the GM knows what is important and what is "fluff". Reminding the players of some details they forgot is not playing in their place, it's giving them more options.

If a player looks like an idiot, check if they have the same "mental image" as you. 9 times out of 10, they just misunderstood, didn't remember an important piece of information, or didn't see the link between 2 "obvious" pieces of information.
(Like in you example of the barbarian jumping off a cliff, even if they're aware it's 20D6 damage, they may simply not remember that the "massive damage" rule exists at your table. If you stop to tell them "it will be 20D6 damage. If I roll over 50 damage, you'll have to save or die. Do you jump, or not?", it's not a mistake anymore, but an informed choice)

[King of Nowhere]

So, I had a thought.

Why is it the GM's job to assume the players forget things?
Why isn't it the player's job to say they don't remember something?

It just seems weird that we have a presumed scenario where the players forgot an important piece of information, and then rather than come right out and say they forget, they act all evasive and cagey when asked a direct question. Right?

it's not exclusively the gm's job. it's everyone's job, when there are reasons to suspect someone may have forgot something, to remind them.
because, fun fact, people who have forgotten an important piece of information generally don't know that they forgot it. when you forget a specific detail, you often also forget that the detail exhisted in the first place.
so, when somebody is apparently doing something stupid, remind them of the elephant in the room. that's everyone's responsibility. it's not a blame game

[Unoriginal]

As a GM, you have a perfect, complete vision of what happened, what is happening, what will probably happen, every character, every event, and, most importantly, what is important and what isn't, and how things are connected

As a player, I just don't know what details I'm supposed to remember. I'll remember only part of an information. I'll mix characters and places. I'll forget the description of the villain. I'll forget that you said there is a red carpet in the bedroom. I'll not pay attention to that long list of titles of the sidhe lord because they're probably not that important, right?

- So I won't randomly ask the GM to repeat the complete description of every NPC in the game, just in case it's important. And I probably won't notice that the Mysterious Stranger I just met fits the description of Lord Alexander Ravenwald that I met last game, unless the GM lays it out really thick, or simply says "That guy really looks familiar, by the way." if it's just a hint to get me thinking and check my notes, or "You can't see his face, but he has those long blue-black hairs of the Ravenwald family" if it's important that I remember.

- And when I say I'm checking the walls for secret doors in the bedroom where someone got murdered, the GM, who knows the red carpet is hiding a trapdoor, could remind me of its existence, either in a new description ("you put the painting down on the red carpet in the middle of the rooom") or simply by asking "do you check under the carpet, too?"

- And when I talk to the seelies, the GM could say "The tall sidhe present himself as the Lord Protector of Muir Wood", or even, if I'm not reacting to that name, "Muir Wood... It takes you a few seconds to realise that it may be the same place that the Dancers are about to attack"


The players hear LOTS of things over the course of the game, but only the GM knows what is important and what is "fluff". Reminding the players of some details they forgot is not playing in their place, it's giving them more options.

If a player looks like an idiot, check if they have the same "mental image" as you. 9 times out of 10, they just misunderstood, didn't remember an important piece of information, or didn't see the link between 2 "obvious" pieces of information.
(Like in you example of the barbarian jumping off a cliff, even if they're aware it's 20D6 damage, they may simply not remember that the "massive damage" rule exists at your table. If you stop to tell them "it will be 20D6 damage. If I roll over 50 damage, you'll have to save or die. Do you jump, or not?", it's not a mistake anymore, but an informed choice)

To give an example that did happen to me:

I was a player during a game session where the PCs needed to cause as much confusion as possible at a slave market, so we could take down the slavers.

One of the bad guy factions trading at the market had a massive steam-powered vehicle, so since one of the NPCs with us had both a sword that can cut through any metal easily and a magic rune necklace that makes the wearer completely immune to fire and heat, my PC proposed that the NPC cut into the vehicle's steam engine, as such a thing leaking would cause a lot of panic and noise, and with her heat immunity she would be safe from the danger.

GM told me that my PC would be familiar enough with the technology to know that compressed steam being released in a burst is not just fire damage, but also bludgeoning damage. My PC ended up not informing the NPC of that, since a) my PC had seen her survive worse without issue, including fighting a giant made of metal without any real injury b) my PC didn't particularly care if this NPC died, given in his eyes she was just "that pirate who would be raiding ships and killing people for a few coins right now if she didn't see the treasure we're after as a better payday" c) my PC had already warned her to just damage the engine then get away from it due to the shrapnels if it blew up, and it she was nonchalant about the danger.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is not 'breaking character' for a GM to provide a memory prompt to a Character in the game. Doing so is treating the Character as a Character who recalls In Game stuff that the Character had learned. This is applicable to a lot of game systems. Systems I have seen this applied to, from long ago to last week:

1. D&D
2. Traveller (original)
3. Mothership
4. Blades in the Dark
5. Dungeon World/Fellowship
6. Runequest

And that's just off the top of my head.

[Ionathus]

If the players have various experiences with "gotcha" GMing, that will inform their reaction. It takes coaching, as a GM, to sometimes get past that. It also takes, to follow up on the point Kish made, establishing a trust relationship.

This was my guess from reading the original post as well.

"Gotcha GMing" can be pretty subtle if you're not looking for it. I often go overboard when roleplaying "hostile" NPCs -- but I try to make sure that the conversation never goes completely off the rails and the PCs can still get what they need out of the interaction: they can "save" the interaction with good enough rolls or creative thinking. But if you're not being careful, it can sometimes feel as a PC that the NPC has a billion unknown triggers you don't know about and saying the "wrong" thing can shut a social encounter down with little or no warning.

That can create a scenario where players are afraid to say ANYTHING, to ANYONE, because it could potentially lock them out of future interactions with that NPC. Especially if they don't have a good read on the NPC and what they like/dislike. That goes double for NPCs who are actually in clandestine organizations or dealing with any sort of specific secrets.

Social play is, in my experience, the biggest potential disconnect between what the GM and the players perceive as "fair consequences." It's easier to recognize as a DM when you're killing PCs with unfindable pit traps. It's harder to recognize when your standards of "good roleplay" are out of sync with your players'. It's very easy to subconsciously impose consequences on NPC conversations that make your players afraid to "play in the space."

It is not 'breaking character' for a GM to provide a memory prompt to a Character in the game. Doing so is treating the Character as a Character who recalls In Game stuff that the Character had learned.

Yep, I do this all the time too. I can't imagine a multi-session TTRPG experience where the GM doesn't give significant "memory leeway" to players. The players get to experience this world in chunks of a few hours each, once a week (or month). The PCs experience the world continuously, and in the world of the game, that thing Catherine forgot from September happened to her PC last Tuesday. She would remember it.

[Kardwill]

it's not exclusively the gm's job. it's everyone's job, when there are reasons to suspect someone may have forgot something, to remind them.
because, fun fact, people who have forgotten an important piece of information generally don't know that they forgot it. when you forget a specific detail, you often also forget that the detail exhisted in the first place.
so, when somebody is apparently doing something stupid, remind them of the elephant in the room. that's everyone's responsibility. it's not a blame game

Oh, yeah, and the GM is completely allowed to forget stuff or get confused, too. Especially if it's stuff told by a player 3 games ago. That's the reason why I'm not fan of the old "the GM is always right" proverb : Quite often, actually, he's not ^^