Players characters evading direct questions

[Telok]

I'm not assuming anything. The actions indicate a possibility they might not be aware of things their characters would be. Like, they might assume that if they're going to be cut off in the underdark, that the king wouldn't have any influence in there, not realizing that they were establishing a foothold.

And your post tells my you misread mine or are making incorrect assumptions about it. I'm not sure why people are so set on the assumption GMs don't tell the players the relevant facts their characters would know. And no, I'm not going to debate it or get into blame-game oriented microanalysis about a good game where the players just had some dickish moments.

The "severe to the point of self-destructive" anti-authority streak of my regular players is something I've come to expect, even if I can't understand it. Some anti-authority I can grok, but not to the point of unprovoked insults, murder, and outlawry. And like Tak I've seen players refuse to share info with NPCs for no apparent reason. The only actual solution offered this thread is stop the game cold and start grilling the players about their motives... OK, thats a touch hyperbolic, but anything more than a quick "why/what" question will stop the game for possibly quite a bit and there are players who'll react like its an accusative interrogation if you don't accept their first answer and try to keep drilling into them.

[Keltest]

And your post tells my you misread mine or are making incorrect assumptions about it. I'm not sure why people are so set on the assumption GMs don't tell the players the relevant facts their characters would know. And no, I'm not going to debate it or get into blame-game oriented microanalysis about a good game where the players just had some dickish moments.

The "severe to the point of self-destructive" anti-authority streak of my regular players is something I've come to expect, even if I can't understand it. Some anti-authority I can grok, but not to the point of unprovoked insults, murder, and outlawry. And like Tak I've seen players refuse to share info with NPCs for no apparent reason. The only actual solution offered this thread is stop the game cold and start grilling the players about their motives... OK, thats a touch hyperbolic, but anything more than a quick "why/what" question will stop the game for possibly quite a bit and there are players who'll react like its an accusative interrogation if you don't accept their first answer and try to keep drilling into them.

Well yes. The whole point is to stop the game, so that the DM is sure that the players are doing what they're doing deliberately rather than through ignorance. They're allowed to make stupid decisions, just as long as they're actually making the decision and not just blindly blundering into danger on accident.

[Reversefigure4]

Why am I required to participate in a game that I don't enjoy?

It's a very good question to ask yourself. You might also ask your players why they participate in a game they don't enjoy.

I'm inclined to lean towards the answer that both sides can't do better and are settling for bad gaming rather than no gaming... Although the fact that -every- player you've ever had behaves like this does suggest the common denominator is more likely to be you than them.

[Kish]

It's a very good question to ask yourself. You might also ask your players why they participate in a game they don't enjoy.

I'm inclined to lean towards the answer that both sides can't do better and are settling for bad gaming rather than no gaming... Although the fact that -every- player you've ever had behaves like this does suggest the common denominator is more likely to be you than them.

I don't know what his players would say, obviously, but for Talakeal, at least, it seems to be a matter of: if I keep playing the way I know to be right and don't budge an inch for them, eventually they'll finally start playing the way they should. If he accepted that they play the way they play and aren't there to be improved by him, we wouldn't keep getting these posts, or he'd find a workaround (as Bob apparently has).

[kyoryu]

And your post tells my you misread mine or are making incorrect assumptions about it. I'm not sure why people are so set on the assumption GMs don't tell the players the relevant facts their characters would know. And no, I'm not going to debate it or get into blame-game oriented microanalysis about a good game where the players just had some dickish moments.

The "severe to the point of self-destructive" anti-authority streak of my regular players is something I've come to expect, even if I can't understand it. Some anti-authority I can grok, but not to the point of unprovoked insults, murder, and outlawry. And like Tak I've seen players refuse to share info with NPCs for no apparent reason. The only actual solution offered this thread is stop the game cold and start grilling the players about their motives... OK, thats a touch hyperbolic, but anything more than a quick "why/what" question will stop the game for possibly quite a bit and there are players who'll react like its an accusative interrogation if you don't accept their first answer and try to keep drilling into them.

The only assumption I'm making is that communication is imperfect. You probably did give them all of the information, but communication is imperfect and, in RPGs, necessarily highly compressed. I'm not "blaming" anyone at all.

I specifically haven't suggested people ask the players their motives - I've been consistent on recommending that you remind players of what their characters know.

[KorvinStarmast]

What we've got here is failure to communicate

Happens at tables, happens on forums. We sometimes talk to each other, and we sometimes talk at each other. The latter makes it all more difficult. (I certainly do that sometimes; it rarely goes well).

Some anti-authority I can grok, but not to the point of unprovoked insults, murder, and outlawry. And like Tak I've seen players refuse to share info with NPCs for no apparent reason.

I still get that kind of stuff with our Wednesday group, and all of us are over 60. Some of this boils down to "why am I playing this game" and "what is fun for me tonight to do" and "how many drinks/tabs/joints have I consumed" and so on.
The reactions vary from "Uh , What?" or "that's nuts, I love it" or "wait, are you sure" by the other players and/or GM. I guess in summary, we aren't all 'serious' about our game and we use this one to blow off steam. Each table will have its own balance point on this.

It's a very good question to ask yourself. You might also ask your players why they participate in a game they don't enjoy.

I'm inclined to lean towards the answer that both sides can't do better and are settling for bad gaming rather than no gaming... Although the fact that -every- player you've ever had behaves like this does suggest the common denominator is more likely to be you than them.

But they all seem to be used to it, and keep on getting together for a game each week(or whatever interval RL allows) so the "good gaming" vs "no gaming" isn't a binary switch. It's like a dimmer on a light switch, or a rheostat that controls volume.

[glass]

I actually read that thread in preparation for this campaign.

Cool. Having just reread it, there was less of a consensus than I remembered, but I still think it very much depends on which marine and which garou, and what gear the marine (and to a lesser extent the garou) has.

If anyone else is curious, the thread here: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?thre...ne-40k.828441/

(Fair warning - the thread is 54 pages and has a few tangents.)

[Devils_Advocate]

I agree that the GM is responsible for informing players of in-character knowledge they need to roleplay their characters appropriately. Indeed, I don't think that anyone here has disputed that.

But I keep seeing people (I think it has been multiple people) saying that Talakeal dropped the ball by not telling the players what they needed to say to get help, on the grounds that their characters would have known that. But not only has Talakeal repeatedly stated that that isn't the case, that's clearly laid out in the opening post:

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.

Emphasis mine.

My best guess is that either the players aren't actually paying attention to the plot and don't remember the specific details, but are too embarrassed to actually say that, or that the players are so afraid of betrayal by the NPCs that they treat everyone as if they were on a need to know basis.

The consensus seems to be that it's either one of those or forgetting that there even were details to remember.

Although, if they weren't giving any details... Well, presumably they observed something in particular that their vague descriptions are referring to. Maybe they forgot the specifics, but I would rather hope that they wouldn't assume, even implicitly, that Generic Evil Deeds With No Specifics are an actual thing that it's possible to observe.

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?".

Well, now, wait just a darned minute, here. If having someone be evasive for no good in-character reason is obnoxious jackass behavior that just stalls progress, so cut it out already... then aren't Talakeal's players at fault in the scenario described in the OP?

And I've got to agree with Talakeal that the default is for each player to control only one specific "player character", as they're called, and for the Game Master control all of the others. That's so standard that I imagine that many RPGs written for experienced players don't mention it, because the authors take for granted that the players don't need to be told that! Exceptions to this general principle are given explicitly. A player claiming not-specifically-granted authority to decide an NPC's behavior is like a GM claiming not-specifically-granted authority to decide a PC's behavior. It goes against a fundamental assumed social contract about each participant's domain of control. Maybe the rules don't specifically lay all of this out, but they probably also don't explicitly state that it's unacceptable to punch a player or the GM in the face in real life.

I told Superman where the Aliens are right now, as well as gave him plenty of evidence that the Aliens are Evil and Up to No Good.

That's moving the goalposts, unless you think a claim that evil aliens are operating out of a particular building constitutes "plenty of evidence" on its own.

ALSO, these are kids. "Excuse me, small child, I'm only Superman or some immortal being beyond mortal comprehension, like a dragon or deity or dream incarnate. Do you happen to have cracked the master plan of the Evil Entities I wasn't even aware of until tonight?"?

It's in-character for virtually any adult in a modern setting be skeptical of claims of monsters, especially from small children, even more especially the more clearly fictional the monsters are. "They're pod people! Like in Invasion of the Body Snatchers!" At that point, it's immediately believing the claim that would be very weird. The default explanation is that these kids sure have some overactive imaginations. Do I need to quote the relevant Dave Strider rant?

But what if the children instead provide incontrovertible evidence, including a large quantity of nitroglycerin?

Well, in that case, the kids themselves look very, as you say, suss. Like, "Wow, these apparent human children sure are acting very unusually for human children. And they just told me that monsters are disguising themselves as humans. But they wouldn't tip their hand like that, would they...?"

Also, while I'm far from an expert on the character, I'm pretty sure that Superman is less of a murderhobo than you seem to think in at least some of his incarnations? My understanding is that he chooses to work a day job as a reporter even though the whole pretending to be a normal human thing, far from being a necessary cover, tends to get in the way of his superheroing. Superman likes investigating stuff, not just punching bad guys.

If anything, the more plausible scenario is that small children come to the Daily Planet about evil aliens, and Clark Kent reassures them that they shouldn't be worried while secretly thinking to himself Hmm, it does sound like these children may have observed some suspicious activity. I'd better scan the building they told me about with my x-ray vision — just to be safe!

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.

Typical enough. Murderhoboes gonna murderhobo, amirite? The surprising part is that you stopped.

The "severe to the point of self-destructive" anti-authority streak of my regular players is something I've come to expect, even if I can't understand it. Some anti-authority I can grok, but not to the point of unprovoked insults, murder, and outlawry.

Some peeps just be Chaotic Stupid like that, I guess.

[Talakeal]

Finished the campaign yesterday. The players managed to pull it off, defeating all of their opponents with no causalities, either PC or NPC.

If someone wants details, I can post more.

Everyone got some form of supernatural power by the end, and I will probably run a few one shots with this characters before the summer's end.

Throughout the entire game, I did my best to try and follow the advice in this thread, places where I could make the game run smoother by breaking character or skipping dialogue entirely, and, no, nothing, I couldn't find any. But it was on my mind the whole time, so I am trying.

There were a few slight issues with the game.

It was still overall a lot of fun, nobody exploded, the game never came to a screeching halt, nobody walked away upset. But still, a few little hiccups.

1: The party was fighting a large fomori that used to be a vampire, the big combat of the game. Bob's pookha was one turn from death, so he decided to unleash Dragon's Ire. Unleashing is a mechanic from Dark Ages Fae that for some reason they added to the new edition of the game, and I have no idea how it works. Upon reading the rules, I still have no idea how it works. As far as I can tell, it allows you to use an art you couldn't normally do, but you can't control it. So, I ruled that it cast Holly Strike (a powerful direct damage spell beyond what he could normally cast) on the enemy, but also his allies.
But, due to a quirk of the dice, it ended up not penetrating the monster's armor, but still damaging his allies. Bob was pissed, as he insisted that it was no fair that his big nuke only hurt him and that I should have ruled it irresistible. And I am like, dude, you tossed this new power at me mid combat with no explanation of how to rule it, forced me to make an off the cuff ruling, and then are blaming me when the dice crapped out on you? Like, I am sorry you had bad luck, but I just don't think dealing irresistible damage that ignores armor is fair for anyone, let alone something that, afaict, every single changeling can do.
We moved on, but Bob stayed grumpy and grumbly for a while.

2: In recapping the previous session for the one player who had to leave early, I brought up the situation with the "miscommunication" that prompted the creation of this thread. Brian started to get very bent out of shape at the prospect that I was going to criticize his decision, and so I immediately dropped it and changed the subject.

3: One of the side plots is an NPC girl who is kin to both the Changelings and the Werewolves. The two sides of herself are at war with one another, preventing the other from taking hold. The players were trying to keep her safe and make sure she became a changeling rather than a werewolf. They came up with a good workable plan, and I told them it will work, but it will take some time. OOC, I was trying to wrap up the main plot to avoid going late (and I failed, the session ran two hours long and Bob bitched me out about it this morning), and they insisted on forcing the issue. Bob tried enchanting her, which allowed her to see the magical world, which caused her to panic and bolt from the room. (OOC I was hoping to end it here, so that we could resolve her story in a one shot later this summer), but they decided not to let her go, and they instead told me they were going to wrestle her to the ground and then tie her up.

I told them OOC that this was a very bad idea, and this was likely to have the exact opposite of the outcome they were hoping for. Bob says that his character doesn't know that, and proceeds. So, I roll a rage test for her, and sure enough, she frenzies from the stress and transforms into a werewolf.

Due to an amazing roll by the new kid, they actually manage to beat the young werewolf into unconsciousness and lock her up in a cage. At which point, Bob loses interest in her and leaves her there, as he doesn't care about werewolves, only changelings.

So yeah, like I said, warning Bob OOC doesn't do anything, he just doubles down on it. (Also, if anyone is an expert on how werewolves take damage, can you let me know? The rules for knocking a werewolf out seem very odd to me.)

Also, Changelings have an ability to grant other characters a boon. One of these boons is that they receive an extra five damage dice "in a fistfight". Bob insists that this is purely flavor text, and that surely "fistfight" means any close combat attack, and thus plans on getting the new kid a silver sword to one shot werewolves with. When I said that no, it was only for unarmed attacks, he got grumpy again and said I was screwing him over for no reason.


Again, just three minor little hiccups, it was hardly a horror show or anything, overall it was a very fun (and unexpected!) end to a fun campaign!

Alright, full stop here. This is wildly inappropriate behavior from a DM, period. "Do this thing you're uncomfortable with or get out." is unacceptable at any table. A player always has the right to say "I do not want to do this" and be listened to. If you aren't willing to compromise on something as simple as somebody not wanting to have to be as charismatic as the character they're playing, its no wonder your players consider you an antagonistic DM. You are one!

So, I am still pretty sure Keltest is either misunderstanding what I said or just giving me the business.

But still... does anyone else feel this way?


To me, the idea that the rest of the table should be required to drastically change the way the game is played for a single person (be they player or GM) with a fundamentally incompatible gaming style is just a recipe for disaster, and that everyone involved would be better if if that person found a different table that was a better fit for them.

Is this really such an outrageous opinion? So outrageous that merely holding it is somehow proof of antagonistic DMing?


Like, I remember one time when I was invited to play Spirit of the Century, and I told the GM that I wasn't comfortable taking an "author stance" in the game, and was especially uncomfortable telling the other players what their characters did (and vice versa I suppose). I was told that was a fundamental part of the game, and he was not willing to budge on it and uninvited me. Was he really that out of line?

Because last night, I just kept thinking "could I run this scene without any social elements?" and over and over again all I could think was "no." I wouldn't have been able to make a coherent plot-line without having some way of knowing what the PCs were telling the NPCs to figure out how the NPCs should react; what they do and what they know, and where they stand.

I even asked the players before the game what they thought, and they couldn't even comprehend it, let alone desire to play such a game; and the closest they could come up with would be some sort of game where the PCs spent all of their time alone in the wilderness and only come into town to quests off a job board, turn in bounties, and buy supplies without a word.

It's a very good question to ask yourself. You might also ask your players why they participate in a game they don't enjoy.

I'm inclined to lean towards the answer that both sides can't do better and are settling for bad gaming rather than no gaming... Although the fact that -every- player you've ever had behaves like this does suggest the common denominator is more likely to be you than them.

I don't know what his players would say, obviously, but for Talakeal, at least, it seems to be a matter of: if I keep playing the way I know to be right and don't budge an inch for them, eventually they'll finally start playing the way they should. If he accepted that they play the way they play and aren't there to be improved by him, we wouldn't keep getting these posts, or he'd find a workaround (as Bob apparently has).

I think you guys are getting a "Flanderized" view of me and my players due to only interacting with my threads. I tend to only post when there is a problem, and then the thread tends to nitpick every aspect of the situation in exhaustive detail, even if it was only a rather minor sticking point in an otherwise fine session.

I have been playing RPGs an average of four hours a week for the past 28 years. Over that time, I have played with a dozen groups and over a hundred players.

The vast majority of my sessions are fine. I am pretty sure that if you remove a few outliers (mostly Bob and the GM I had from 2015-2018) my experience isn't that atypical. Furthermore, even the sessions that do have a problem, most of them are relatively minor and forgotten after a few minutes, resulting in an overall fun experience with a few small hiccups. Certainly no more drama than any other activity with any other group of people, be it a day at the plant, a family get together, or going out to drink beer and shoot pool.

Now, I fully admit that I am stubborn, set in my ways, and defensive. I also have NVLD which means misunderstandings are frequent. I am also analytical and enjoy talking my problems to death, so you see a lot more of my gaming problems than most people. I also am loath to cut ties with people who are clearly problematic.

But the thing is, most of my sessions go fine. Any friction they have is relatively minor, over quickly without an big blowups or lasting consequences.

Likewise, every player is a unique individual. Some or overall good, some are overall bad, most are neither. But they all have their own quirks. Their complaints about me are all unique, and my complaints about them are all unique. Many of them I have no real complaints about at all. Some of them just ghost the group after one session, despite me being on my best behavior and not noticing any friction in what appeared to be a fine session that was fun for all.

Its hard to believe I am the common factor in every failed relationship (like the motivational poster says) because the complaints (in both directions) are so varied; although I am absolutely not so delusional that I believe I never do anything wrong or play no part in the conflict.

As for the rest of my current group:

Brian and I have been best friends for decades, and we fight like an old married couple, but with both genuinely enjoy each other's company and games.

The new kid is on his phone a lot, and is a bit detached from the game, but he still shows up every week, enjoys the game, and is almost entirely drama free. Oddly enough, I played World of Warcraft with him for a bit, and online he is one of the most toxic people I have ever gamed with.

The new girl cheats. She also lies. This is unacceptable behavior, and she will not be invited to future campaigns unless she drastically changes her ways. However, she starts very little drama, and rarely argues or loses her temper (although she does have a nasty habit of jumping into other people's squabbles and dog-piling on one side or the other).

Sarah is, much like the new kid, almost entirely drama free, but often gets distracted by her phone. This is not an issue for anyone, but there have been a handful of times over the past five years where (afaict) she missed something critical because she was on her phone and rather than admitting it, she tried to blame someone else. But yeah, this is like 1% of games maybe?

Johnny is fine. He is a bit of a troll and likes to cause a bit of IC trouble for his party members, but nothing so severe it actually sabotages them or spills over into RL bad blood.

As for myself, I am learning all the time. Like, just recently I figured out that, while for some players lore is a reward, for other players it is a punishment, and I need to treat it as such.

Likewise, one of the reasons I am so strident in my opinions is because I have learned from bad experiences in the past. For example, I used to have a lot of Mary Sue GMPCs in my games, and I recognize how bad it was. Likewise, I am so avoidant of breaking character to give OOC advice because I have had so damn many players have adverse reactions to it, from my first game of Heroquest in 1991 where my dad rage quit because I suggested he search for secret doors when stuck, to my game last night where Bob doubled down on a bad decision when warned, and Brian started to get bent out of shape when he thought I was criticizing his judgement.

[Kish]

So, I am still pretty sure Keltest is either misunderstanding what I said or just giving me the business.

But still... does anyone else feel this way?


To me, the idea that the rest of the table should be required to drastically change the way the game is played for a single person (be they player or GM) with a fundamentally incompatible gaming style is just a recipe for disaster, and that everyone involved would be better if if that person found a different table that was a better fit for them.

Is this really such an outrageous opinion? So outrageous that merely holding it is somehow proof of antagonistic DMing?

Wait a minute. That's not only not what got that response from Keltest, it's inverting what got that response from Keltest. You had said that you weren't willing to let Bob not do dialogue. Not "the entire table wants him to"--if anyone but you cares if Bob says his character's lines or reports everything his character says as if he was delivering an after-the-fact synopsis, you've never mentioned it--but that you want him to. Your way, or the highway. Exactly what you're now saying should not be accommodated.

(Now, I wouldn't want to play without dialogue either, but, as previously mentioned, I wouldn't want to play with anyone in the group you've described.)

(Edited to add: Also, you "very trustingly" went to "this person is saying something he doesn't mean to be nasty to me personally." Again.)

[Keltest]

What Kish said.

[Talakeal]

Wait a minute. That's not only not what got that response from Keltest, it's inverting what got that response from Keltest. You had said that you weren't willing to let Bob not do dialogue. Not "the entire table wants him to"--if anyone but you cares if Bob says his character's lines or reports everything his character says as if he was delivering an after-the-fact synopsis, you've never mentioned it--but that you want him to. Your way, or the highway. Exactly what you're now saying should not be accommodated.

(Now, I wouldn't want to play without dialogue either, but, as previously mentioned, I wouldn't want to play with anyone in the group you've described.)

Spoiler: Let me pull up the entire quote chain:

Show

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?".

This isn't what Brian meant, either at this point or in the past.

However, if it had, I would politely tell him that the social and exploration pillars are as important as combat at my table, and he is better off not playing if he really feels that dialogue is so tedious.

Also, it is really bizarre that he created a character whose whole shtick was being an archeologist who communes with the spirits of the earth to learn about the ancient past and then being dismissive about having a conversation with a statue in an ancient tomb; and if he really feels that way he might want to rework his character as that attitude is going to seriously limit his progress going forward as "talking to freaking rocks" is a core part of his character.

But again, this is literally beating up a straw-man as that is not what he meant (unless he was secretly thinking it and then lying to cover it up).

It is fun for some people. It ranges from "tedious" to "nerve wracking fear inducing stage fright terror" for others. Never require players to do this.

That's fine. My question is: Do you allow your player to just say "My player will try to convince the NPC by using <flattery>", and give that player the exact same roll (or auto success in some situations) as you'd give them if they dramatically role-played out the scene in character?

I treat those identically because I realize that many players are quite uncomfortable with actually speaking in character.

That, right there, may be your problem. You're presenting a "my way or the highway" ultimatum to your player(s). Which may very well be why this creates an argument so often. At some point, you have to realize that your players may not want to play the way you want them to. It's their game time too. And this is such an incredibly silly thing to argue over. Also, "social" is not the same as "dialogue".

If players want to role-play out dialogue, by all means allow that. But don't force them, or require them to do this. And definitely do not ever punish them for not doing so by requiring social die rolls which you would not require if RP was used, or more difficult rolls, or well any change at all. Let the players play the way they are comfortable playing. And yes. Giving a bonus for RP like this also acts as a soft penalty for not doing so, so I'd avoid that as well.

Let this be something they do, or don't do, as their own choice. I've just never found any value to be found by forcing the issue as a GM.

I have no interest in playing a game with no dialogue.

I am not going to spend 10-20 hours a week of prep and then 6-10 hours at the gaming table playing a game I don't want to play.

If a player is adamant about zero dialogue in their game, then they should not play at my table.

Likewise, if all of the players are adamant about zero dialogue, I should find a new group. Some say I should do this anyway.

Fortunately, I have never encountered a player who had a zero tolerance policy for dialogue, although all players have a spectrum of how much they enjoy for any given part of the game.

Its basic social dynamics; if Bob will ONLY eat Chinese Food, and Brian will ONLY eat pizza, then there is no compromise, we simply have to make sure we never invite both of them out to dinner on the same night.

Alright, full stop here. This is wildly inappropriate behavior from a DM, period. "Do this thing you're uncomfortable with or get out." is unacceptable at any table. A player always has the right to say "I do not want to do this" and be listened to. If you aren't willing to compromise on something as simple as somebody not wanting to have to be as charismatic as the character theyre playing, its no wonder your players consider you an antagonistic DM. You are one!

There is nothing antagonistic about not being interested in playing certain types of games.

I am not my players' slave. Nor are they mine.

Why am I required to participate in a game that I don't enjoy?

This seems to be the most aggressive assertion of "the geek social fallacies" I have ever heard!


This is not about being charismatic, it is about refusing to participate in social scenes at all.

The fact that you feel the need to frame it as such shows to me that you either don't understand what I am saying, or you realize how ridiculous your position would sound if you came right out and said it.

I understand exactly what youre saying. You expect the players to compromise but are unwilling to do so yourself. The problem is always with their behavior, never yours.

Again, this is about a hypothetical character who considers social interactions to be a "tedious waste of their time" and wants to simply walk away from all interactions with NPCs with the maximum benefit without either needing to tell me what their character is saying (let alone talking in character) or making charisma tests.

This (hypothetical) play-style is totally incompatible with how I run my games, and I would not even know how to run (or play in) a game in this manner, let alone enjoy it.

Thus I would suggest that said hypothetical player find a different game.

[Kish]

Mind the attributions. You've got my name on one of your quotes.

[Talakeal]

Ok, I think maybe I am seeing where the miscommunication is...

I am picturing a scenario where the GM is running a game where dialogue is a part of the game and all of the players are happy with it, and then one of the players (either a new player or a current one) demands that dialogue be stripped from the game entirely because they consider it "tedious". In which case the one player is out of line and should find a group where everyone else feels that way.

OR a scenario where the entire table dislikes dialogue except for the GM, in which case the GM is out of line and should find a new group where everyone else is ok with dialogue.


I think maybe Keltest is imagining a scenario where the GM is adamantly for dialogue, and one of the PCs is adamantly against dialogue, and the entire rest of the table is totally neutral in the exchange and will be equally happy either way?

Is that what is going on here?


Edit: Although, I guess it really doesn't matter. I am still not going enjoy playing at a table with no dialogue, and I am certainly not going to spend roughly two hours of prep for one hour at the table running a game I don't enjoy. So I guess kicking the new guy out of the group is functionally identical to leaving the group myself and starting a new game with an open invitation for the neutral players to come with me.

[GeoffWatson]

It wasn't clear that the player was hypothetical, we thought you were talking about one of your players who refused to speak in character.

[Reversefigure4]

Like, I remember one time when I was invited to play Spirit of the Century, and I told the GM that I wasn't comfortable taking an "author stance" in the game, and was especially uncomfortable telling the other players what their characters did (and vice versa I suppose). I was told that was a fundamental part of the game, and he was not willing to budge on it and uninvited me. Was he really that out of line?

I'd call the GM wise for listening to your clear "I don't want to play this particular game" and proceeding accordingly: his two choices are to either play without you or change campaigns. He picked one and proceeded.

Unlike your system for Bob, which is "Do all the things Bob has repeatedly both implicitly and explicitly told you he doesn't like, then be surprised when he blows up".

[Kish]

Yes, Talakeal, there is generally an issue when someone says "In situation A, I'd do X," someone else replies, "That's totally out of line," and the first person comes back with, "You're really saying it's out of line to do X in situation B?"

[KorvinStarmast]

Typical enough. Murderhoboes gonna murderhobo, amirite? The surprising part is that you stopped.

Not surprising at all that we stopped. We aren't underground in a dungeon crawl; we are in one of the palaces at the capital, but had been ambushed (demon summoning, archmage, etc as previously described) during the previous session. We had just come out of a brutal battle deep within the palace.
As players, we have mixed approaches to ... just about everything. For you to claim that we are a group of murderhoboes is inaccurate (although the wizard tends to play that way all the time; it takes the rest of us to keep him in check). The DM gave us enough rope to make a mistake, we made it, and then we recovered.

[glass]

But I keep seeing people (I think it has been multiple people) saying that Talakeal dropped the ball by not telling the players what they needed to say to get help, on the grounds that their characters would have known that. But not only has Talakeal repeatedly stated that that isn't the case, that's clearly laid out in the opening post:


Emphasis mine.

The point is not that the characters would have known that, it is that they needed to know it to realise the significance of the plan to attack the woods. It is a common blindspot for GMs that things that are obvious to them are decidedly non obvious to their players even if the players do have all the available information, and doubly so when they do not.

Well, now, wait just a darned minute, here. If having someone be evasive for no good in-character reason is obnoxious jackass behavior that just stalls progress, so cut it out already... then aren't Talakeal's players at fault in the scenario described in the OP?

If Talakael's players are anything like he describes them here, at least three of them are "obnoxious jackass[es]", and the best thing Talakael could do to improve his gaming is kick them into touch and recruit better players. He is either unwilling or unable to do that, but whether he does or not, that does not mean he cannot look to get his own house in order and improve things on his side of the screen. He can and should IMNSHO!

It's in-character for virtually any adult in a modern setting be skeptical of claims of monsters, especially from small children, even more especially the more clearly fictional the monsters are.

Huh? Has there been any suggestion from Talakael that the Fae in question did not believe that Black Spiral Dancers and Fomori were a real thing in the setting? If so, I missed it.

The reason a child talking about supernatural stuff is not believed is because supernatural stuff does not exist. But in the World of Darkness, stuff that would be supernatural in real-world terms absolutely does exist. The Fae definitely know that they exist!

So, I am still pretty sure Keltest is either misunderstanding what I said or just giving me the business.

But still... does anyone else feel this way?

It depends what "this way" is. I strongly feel that consent is important and can be withdrawn at any time. I strongly feel that talking in character is its own reward for those that enjoy it, and should not be forced on those who do not. Despite multiple posts on the subject, I am still not confident how you stand on those issues.

Conversely, I am quite* confident that Keltest was not advocating removing all dialogue for everybody because one player was uncomfortable. Just that such a player should neither be badgered into talking in character, nor penalised with increased difficulty for not doing so.

(* That's a British "quite" - roughly translated it means "almost utterly").

[Keltest]

Conversely, I am quite* confident that Keltest was not advocating removing all dialogue for everybody because one player was uncomfortable. Just that such a player should neither be badgered into talking in character, nor penalised with increased difficulty for not doing so.

(* That's a British "quite" - roughly translated it means "almost utterly").

Your confidence is justified. Some people find talking in character hard or uncomfortable. Kicking them out of your group, whether directly or passive aggressively, for not wanting to do something that they find uncomfortable, is terrible. Its such a trivial compromise to just let them play the way they want, it isnt hurting anyone. Just let shy people be shy.

[glass]

One thing I notice about this thread but had not previously commented on (and I don't think anyone else did either):

Talakael talks a lot about "breaking character" but as I GM I am narrating stuff out of character all the time. Depending on the style of game, that might involve a lot of breaking character a lot, or just not being in character all that much. What's the alternative? Having a handy NPC show up to do the description every time I need to tell the players what a door looks like?

What I am saying is, I am assuming "breaking character" means something different to Talakael than it means to me. But I am at a loss as to what that "something" could be.

[Telok]

Conversely, I am quite* confident that Keltest was not advocating removing all dialogue for everybody because one player was uncomfortable. Just that such a player should neither be badgered into talking in character, nor penalised with increased difficulty for not doing so.

(* That's a British "quite" - roughly translated it means "almost utterly").

Possibly. Although it did somewhat come off that way.

You're talking about an instance where a player chooses an ability that lets them talk with an object and the player wants to go "I roll diplomacy on it". Tak doesn't want to run games where everything is "i diplomacy it <roll> 45 i win", plus the base assumption of most rpgs is that there is some level of in-character description or action. Kel's post was supporting the "shy players don't shouldn't have to rp being max charisma and fail because they're shy".

Now, "i diplomacy roll it" and "don't kick shy players" have an overlap, but only at the most extreme ends of their spectra. Tak didn't say "ic rp or else" and Kel didn't mean "you're bad if you don't 100% enable rollplay". But people are acting like that's what was said.

If I'm running Paranoia and someone is uncomfortable with the PvP aspect I can get a table compromise where they're only accused of treason at most and actual PC vs PC combat is verboten (that's actually close to a best practices in Paranoia anyways). Tak had an almost-game where they said they were uncomfortable with a mechanic and got kicked out, and has never indicted a wish to do that to their players. In my current game PCs could talk to house cleaning robots or car auto-pilots (they don't, but they could) and I'd need them to at a minimum state what they're asking about. They can't just say "i roll epic persuade and win" because I need a minimum amount of input from them to work with. On the other hand I don't make players stand up and give speeches or require super in-character conversations. If they want to they can, and sometimes I can do it for NPCs, but I still need more than "i give an undefined speech".

[Mordar]

The point is not that the characters would have known that, it is that they needed to know it to realise the significance of the plan to attack the woods. It is a common blindspot for GMs that things that are obvious to them are decidedly non obvious to their players even if the players do have all the available information, and doubly so when they do not.

I still don't track this. The kids didn't need to run to the Fae and say "The monsters in my house are going to attack the Muir Woods where I know you have a secret fort!". They just had to respond to a question asked of them in a reasonably direct fashion.

This isn't "My character needed to know that Ocean Beach was important to the Strange Old Man, so that is where I need to go to look for the glyph he inscribed on the pier to protect the area in order to learn about the secret community of Deep One Surfers living in the area". It's being asked after I discovered the glyph if I saw anything strange when I was down on the Ocean Beach pier and saying nothing.

- M

[Talakeal]

Your confidence is justified. Some people find talking in character hard or uncomfortable. Kicking them out of your group, whether directly or passive aggressively, for not wanting to do something that they find uncomfortable, is terrible. Its such a trivial compromise to just let them play the way they want, it isnt hurting anyone. Just let shy people be shy.

So what actually happened* was that Brian said that he wasn't nearly as charismatic as his character, and was thus at an unfair disadvantage in social scenarios as a result, and that Dave, who was much more charismatic than his character, was at an unfair advantage, and thus we should resolve social challenges with a dice roll.

I agreed, but I said that you still need to tell me what you are saying to the NPC and how (talking in character encouraged but not required) so that I can determine the NPC's reaction and know what to set the difficulty at for any charisma tests that might be required.


Then, Gbaji posited a hypothetical scenario where a player was unwilling or unable to talk in character at all.


I responded that, since roughly 1/3rd of my playtime (this varies wildly from session to session and system to system) is spent talking in character, I would politely suggest that they might not enjoy my game and might be happier finding a different group. I would not, however, kick them out unless they were repeatedly sabotaging the rest of the group's fun as a result of their boredom.

Hell, I have been that guy in the past. In my best game ever, I was playing a quiet, introverted, un-charismatic character. Despite the game being 80+% dialogue, I rarely spoke, but I still enjoyed just being there and soaking up the lore and the ambience. Heck, I specifically recall three entire sessions that were 100% dialogue and where I didn't say a single word in character, but I was still present, paying attention, enjoying the game, and most importantly not disrupting anyone else.


Then Gbaji posited a further hypothetical where a player considered having to tell me what their character said or make dice rolls at all to be "tedious" and "jumping through hoops" and that I should just let them walk away with all pertinent information.

This is, effectively, removing the social element from the game entirely. Best case scenario, it is reducing it to NPC monologues reminiscent of a World of Warcraft quest giver. I then said that I would not participate in such a game, not as a player, and certainly not as a GM; which is where the bit you initial quoted came from.


*When we first had the conversation, not during the stone shape incident. That was about Brian misreading the spell and me thinking he was making a call back to this earlier argument about social DCs.

One thing I notice about this thread but had not previously commented on (and I don't think anyone else did either):

Talakael talks a lot about "breaking character" but as I GM I am narrating stuff out of character all the time. Depending on the style of game, that might involve a lot of breaking character a lot, or just not being in character all that much. What's the alternative? Having a handy NPC show up to do the description every time I need to tell the players what a door looks like?

What I am saying is, I am assuming "breaking character" means something different to Talakael than it means to me. But I am at a loss as to what that "something" could be.

That's a good point, I guess that isn't clear, but I am not sure I have a better way to explain it.

What I mean it, basically, instead of describing the world around them, I am instead talking to them person to person to provide knowledge their characters would not necessarily know.

Like the difference between:

"You notice the monster has a huge hole in its armor, likely the result of a previous battle, leaving its vital organs completely exposed" vs. "Hey guys, if you want to win this fight, you need to start making called shot's for the monster's weak spot".

I still don't track this. The kids didn't need to run to the Fae and say "The monsters in my house are going to attack the Muir Woods where I know you have a secret fort!". They just had to respond to a question asked of them in a reasonably direct fashion.

This isn't "My character needed to know that Ocean Beach was important to the Strange Old Man, so that is where I need to go to look for the glyph he inscribed on the pier to protect the area in order to learn about the secret community of Deep One Surfers living in the area". It's being asked after I discovered the glyph if I saw anything strange when I was down on the Ocean Beach pier and saying nothing.

- M

Bingo.

Possibly. Although it did somewhat come off that way.

You're talking about an instance where a player chooses an ability that lets them talk with an object and the player wants to go "I roll diplomacy on it". Tak doesn't want to run games where everything is "i diplomacy it <roll> 45 i win", plus the base assumption of most rpgs is that there is some level of in-character description or action. Kel's post was supporting the "shy players don't shouldn't have to rp being max charisma and fail because they're shy".

Now, "i diplomacy roll it" and "don't kick shy players" have an overlap, but only at the most extreme ends of their spectra. Tak didn't say "ic rp or else" and Kel didn't mean "you're bad if you don't 100% enable roleplay". But people are acting like that's what was said.

This is my understanding of it as well, but Keltest was pretty insistent that there was no misunderstanding and that he knew exactly what I meant, so...

Yes, Talakeal, there is generally an issue when someone says "In situation A, I'd do X," someone else replies, "That's totally out of line," and the first person comes back with, "You're really saying it's out of line to do X in situation B?"

Right.

But the thing is, Keltest didn't present a situation, he quoted something I said. So I am thinking that he must have misunderstood the situation I was describing in the first place.

I'd call the GM wise for listening to your clear "I don't want to play this particular game" and proceeding accordingly: his two choices are to either play without you or change campaigns. He picked one and proceeded.

And I don't disagree there.

Although I think it probably would have been better long term if he had let me ease into it so that I had a chance to either become comfortable with it or decide on my own that the game wasn't for me, but I don't think he is under any moral or social obligation to do such.

Unlike your system for Bob, which is "Do all the things Bob has repeatedly both implicitly and explicitly told you he doesn't like, then be surprised when he blows up".

As far as I can tell "all the things Bob doesn't like" boils down to "being told no in any context"; be it me making a mechanical ruling that isn't in his favor, an NPC setting boundaries IC, or me warning him OOC that his plan is likely to fail or produce unintended consequences.


If you have any more in depth insight into Bob, please do share.

[Jason]

If I'm running Paranoia and someone is uncomfortable with the PvP aspect I can get a table compromise where they're only accused of treason at most and actual PC vs PC combat is verboten (that's actually close to a best practices in Paranoia anyways).

???

Playing Paranoia without the player vs. player aspect? I can't imagine what exactly you'd be playing then. It's kind of the central concept of Paranoia (hint: it's in the title of the game).

I'm sorry, citizen, but your friend the Computer must insist that you report to the nearest termination booth immediately.
Have a nice day!

[Mordar]

Your confidence is justified. Some people find talking in character hard or uncomfortable. Kicking them out of your group, whether directly or passive aggressively, for not wanting to do something that they find uncomfortable, is terrible. Its such a trivial compromise to just let them play the way they want, it isnt hurting anyone. Just let shy people be shy.

When it is part and parcel of the game itself? Not talking about character acting, accents or voices, but relaying what you are conversing in a game that is *entirely* predicated on the players conversing?

Should someone not be encouraged to seek entertainment elsewhere than a 3x3 basketball team if they don't want to dribble, pass or defend?

- M

[Keltest]

When it is part and parcel of the game itself? Not talking about character acting, accents or voices, but relaying what you are conversing in a game that is *entirely* predicated on the players conversing?

Should someone not be encouraged to seek entertainment elsewhere than a 3x3 basketball team if they don't want to dribble, pass or defend?

- M

Thats not what he said though. He did in fact say he was talking about character acting.

[Talakeal]

Thats not what he said though. He did in fact say he was talking about character acting.

Gbaji or I?

Gbaji said "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?"."

I then extrapolated to say that if the reason was that he didn't want to talk in character, I would politely tell him that he might not enjoy my game because we spend ~1/3 of the game talking in character.


The part you quoted was then in response to the idea that rolling dice in a social situation or telling me what your character says is "jumping through hoops" or "tedious", where I said that is effectively removing the social aspect of the game entirely, and I have no interest in playing, let alone running, such a game.


Basically, we have three degrees of player statements:

A: Player doesn't want their lack of charisma irl to influence their characters success in game.
B: Player will not talk in character.
C: Player will not put any effort into social interaction in game, even rolling dice.

And then we have my responses:

A: Ok, that is reasonable. I will try and not let your eloquence influence my judgement.
B: That's fine for you, but understand that you might get bored and we won't tolerate disruption, so you might be better of finding a different table where they don't talk so much.
C: I refuse to play at this table, especially as the GM.


Which is why I said you seem to be confused, as you seem to be interpreting my post as reacting to player A with my response to player C.

[gbaji]

This isn't just about dialogue though; for example, if you have a secret door opened by pulling a candelabra, and a player specifically says "I pull on the candelabra" it is hard to still require a search check, whereas if the player insists that they won't go within 10 feet of the candelabra because they are afraid of steeping into the light it casts, it's hard to justify allowing a search check at all.

Sure. But the scenario in question was more like the first case and not at all like the second. The player told you what he wanted to do (find the secret exit) and how he intended to do it (cast a stonespeak spell and ask the statue). That should have been plenty sufficient for success. Any IC RP at that point is an added bonus, but utterly unnecessary to resolving the scene and moving the party on through the secret exit and into the rest of the adventure.

Instead, they got "stuck" for hours. That's a failure. And a failure imposed on them because you put up an arbitrary wall in front of them IMO. You decided "I'm not going to let them get the info from the statue unless they either RP the dialogue out, or make some kind of charisma roll". The player choose not to RP, and failed the roll.

I would have made the choices "RP and succeed" and "don't RP and succeed". Let the player RP, or not, as they wish. They've already "figured out a solution", just let them succeed.

I have no interest in playing a game with no dialogue.

Right. But you are playing at a table, which, by past statements by you, includes only one player even moderately intersted in RP dialogue (who ends up always playing the "party face"). And even that player seems... reluctant (again, going by past posts, so maybe I'm getting this wrong). So... maybe adjust your expectations to your table, and not demand that they adjust to your preferrence? Just a thought.

If a player is adamant about zero dialogue in their game, then they should not play at my table.

Let's also not create a false dilemma here. There's a middle gound between "use RP dialogue in every NPC interaction" and "use RP dialogue in zero NPC interactions". Most players will enjoy and get into the occasional dialogue bits. But sometimes they just want to move on, and would prefer to narrate the social encounter instead. If they choose to do that, just let them.

In this particular scenario, you literally stated that you spent time on the spot coming up with a personality for the stone statue, so as to launch into a RP session. Which the player had no interest in at all. Maybe next time the player just says "I cast stonespeak and ask the statue for info about secret exits", you just respond with "after a few minutes of conversation, the statue tells you there is a secret door in the sarcophogas, and a switch on its back opens it". That literally takes 10 seconds to do, and the game moves on.

You need to decide how important it really is for you to force this kind of social dialogue in the game. Is it worth making something that could have been resolved and allowed the game to continue in just a few seconds turn into a frustrating stop point that takes 3 hours? I would argue admantly that it is not.

And I'm not even saying that you can't come up with a personality for the statue, and dialogue for it to the player. But if the player response using narration (e.g.: "I ask the statue if it knows about any secret exits from this chamber"), just allow it. Sometimes, players are uncomfortable coming up with dialogue. Sometimes, they just feel the encounter is trivial and not worth the time/effort. In either case, just allow it. Certainly don't make your game come to a screeching halt because of this.

I am starting to think that you and I have fundamentally different paradigms when it comes to creating an RPG scenario.

Yes. My paradigm is "don't allow the game to get bogged down on unnessary stuff". If the players want to spend time doing stuff off on the side, they are free to do so, but if the players want to "go to the place and do the thing", I'm going to go right to that and let them do that. My job is to facilitate my players ability to explore and interact with the game world and events within via their PC choices and actions, not to force them in terms of how they do that. And certainly not to punish them because they don't do things the exact way I want them to.

From what I can tell, you seem to think that every scene has a "purpose" as well as a "desired outcome" and that it is your job as the GM to do whatever it takes to make sure that desired outcome occurs.

Yes. They do. Otherwise why spend table time on them? And let me be clear. Different games may have different objectives and methodologies, so this can vary wildly.

And I don't say "do whatever it takes". You are, once again, presenting an "all or nothing" kind of methodology. There's a huge range between "don't allow them to succeed no matter what they try" and "ensure they automatically succeed no matter what they try".

I will say, however, that if "go to the seelie court and ask for help with the bad guys" is the scene we're doing, and they fail to get help with the bad guys, then the scene has "failed". And no. I'm not going to make sure they succeed, no matter what. But if they are failing, I'm going to make sure it's not because of some structural of informational problem in my game. So if I'm positive that I provided them with the information they need to use to succeed, and for some reason they aren't using it, you can bet I'm going to directly ask them, while the scene is going on: "Is there a reason you are not using this information? Do you remember the information? Are you intentionally choosing not to use it? If so... why?". I'm not just going to keep my mouth shut and watch them flail around for hours.

And, as I pointed out very very early in this thread, this is a situation that simply does not come up in my game. My players would simply never have even gone to the seelie court without having previously had a complete table talk discussion about why they were going there, what they wanted to get out of it, and how they were going to try to do this. Said conversation would absolutely have included discussion about the planned attack, whether that was deemed relevant or not, whether they would bring it up, under which conditions etc. So by the time we are actually playing out the scene, I already know why my players are doing or saying what they are doing and saying, and none of it is a surprise.

Furthermore, you seem to have a hard time accepting that this isn't how I do things, and in every thread you go on insisting that I set things up a specific way and am then somehow trying to punish my players for not going along with it. And I can't seem to convince you that this just isn't how I approach things; I set up situations and then see how the players resolve them and how the dice say they play out, that once the scene is set, I am rather passive and am mostly just arbitrating the outcome of the players actions on the scene I have already set up.

Patient: "Doctor. I hit myself in the head with a hammer, and now my head hurts"
Doctor: "Well then, stop hitting yourself in the head with a hammer"
Patient: "But hitting myself in the head with a hammer shouldn't hurt, so that can't possibly be the cause of my pain"
Doctor: "I don't hit myself in the head with a hammer, and my head doesn't hurt. Also, here's a list of other people who don't hit themselves in the head with a hammer, and all of them also don't suffer from head trauma like you do. It seems clear that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is a direct cause of head pain. Maybe you should take my advice and stop hitting yourself in the head with a hammer"
Patient: "Well clearly you and I have a different opinion on the effects of hitting yourself on the head with a hammer"
Doctor: "Yes. That does appear to be the case. But maybe just try not hitting yourself on the head with a hammer and see if this helps?"
Patient: "You're just having a hard time accepting that hitting myself on the head with a hammer is just my way of doing things, and I'm free to do my own thing my own way if I want."
Doctor: /facepalm


It just seems like we've had the same conversation many times now. You report some problem you had in your game. Many posters (myself included) all say "here's something you could have done differently which would have prevented or mitigated that problem". You get defensive and insist that these posters are wrong, and nothing you did contributed to the problem, and it's all your players fault, and there's nothing you could possibly have done differently to prevent that problem.

And we just keep repeating the same process. As long as you keep posting problems in your game, I'll keep posting what I believe to be better ways to manage things so as to prevent/avoid/mitigate those kinds of problems. I'm honestly tring to help you here. You are free to take our advice, or not. It's your choice. But you're the one having these problems. Not me. I've literally never had the degree of issues you seem to eternally be encountering. And I've seen some really numbskull players and really dumb ideas in my time. But never have I had a game sesssion simply lock up.

So yes. My focus is on "keep the game moving". And yeah. Sometimes this means we move forward with "players have a really dumb plan that's likely to get them all killed". But my method of GMing assures that in the event that something goes horrifically wrong the players absolutely know 100% that it was completely of their own choice, and I gave them every single possible opportunity and bit of information to make a different one. And because of this, I have *never* had a table argument where the players are blaming me for their failure. Never. Not once.

You're free to say that you don't like my method. But my method works.

Although I am still not quite clear on how you determine what the "purpose of a scene" is and how who actually makes that call, and how that person communicates it to the rest of the table without spoiling the scene, and how you resolve conflicts where two people don't agree on the purpose of a scene.

The players had to have had a reason for going to that court. They must have had at least some conversation about it. Surely, you didn't just say "Ok. Next scene. You guys find yourself attending the Seelie Court <launch into description and IC dialogue interaction for the next several hours>", right? Please tell me that's not how the PCs got there. And if not, then how? They must have discussed that the Seelie Court existed, and when/where it was, and made the deicison to go there, with a specific reason to do so, and a specific objective in mind (I'm assuming "get help with the bad guys").

That's the "purpose of the scene". I'm not sure what you mean by "communicates it to the rest of the table without spoiliing the scene"? Huh? Your players don't talk to each other? The players ask "Hey. Is there any way we can get in touch with some powerful Fae folks to get help". And you tell them about the Seelie Court, and when/where they are next meeting. The players then have a discussion about this, presumably including "we can ask them for help!", and then decide to go there to do this.

That doesn't "spoil the scene". It "sets the scene". It makes sure everyone at the table knows where they are, why they are there, what they are trying to do, and how they are going to try to do it. How do you manage to run games without your players having these kinds of conversations at the table? Do they just kinda randomly lurch from scene to scene with no clue why they are there, or what they're trying to do? That seems... strange.

The spell allows him to speak to the stones, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes. In the same way you can speak to any other person if you share a language. That's not the issue here.

I can't, for example, ever imagine you saying "Well, the PC speaks common, and the NPC speaks common. Therefore, any interaction between them should result in the player walking away with all relevant and available information, regardless of what their previous relationship was, what approach the PC takes, what questions were actually asked, or how badly the PC in question flubbed their charisma check."

If the information is something the NPC knows, and has no reason not to tell it to the PC, then no, you should not require a social skill roll to get the information. It should be as simple as "I ask the guy on the side of the road for directions" and "Ok. You get directions" (which may lead to some kind of "can I follow/understand directions" roll, but not one just to get the information).

You are, again, playing the "all or nothing" game. There is a range between "every NPC will provide you all information they know about anything at all, without a die roll needed" and "no NPC will ever provide you with any informatiion about anything without a die roll being made".

If the NPC has a reason to keep the information secret, or to lie, then you may call for some sort of skill roll or whatever to get the info. But... if not? Then you don't.

They are not identical.

They are "functionally" identical. The exact same actions were taken in game, and the exact same NPC reactions should result.

The first gives far more information and is far more entertaining to read.

There is a reason "show don't tell" is one of the fundamental rules of storytelling.

Your players may not always want to do storytelling though. They just want to get through the scene/puzzle/problem/whatever so they can get on to more interesting things in the game. Don't forget that this is a game. The game has objectives. It's more than just telling a story, or giving nice dialogue. Once the scene is over, the dialogue is in the past. The only thing that remains and which affects the game going foward is whatever functional objecitves were achieved. If they found and opened the secret door, then they can continue on and whether they used flowery dialogue to get there or not ceases to matter one bit. They got through the secret door. Period.

Having them "stuck" because of the fluff dialogue is just a bad approach IMO.

What you are basically describing is the difference between reading a book and reading a plot summary on Wikipedia. For people who enjoy reading books, the former is a far richer and more rewarding experience, while the latter is probably better for someone who doesn't like the book in the first place but has a report on it due Monday.

The players would like to get through the secret door and on to the rest of the dungeon sometime this game session. So yeah. "Plot summary" is the better approach here. Do you honestly believe your players felt they were having a "richer and more rewarding" experience?

You place created creatures above dominated creatures? Really?

Why is that?

Assuming (as is the case with the "Spectre" spell), that the caster is actually creating the personality of the created being, then it should naturally and without having to be controlled, behave how the character wishes. When a player creates a character, they also create the personality of that character. And because of this, the player is the one who plays every action and choice that character makes (and PCs have "free will" right?). Why would this be any different?

Dominate actually give you a telepathic ability to dictate most every action the creature takes.

Almost every action. And it's because they are being forced to do so. So yes. A being created with a given personality and sense of self/purpose/whatever by a PC, should (barring some exception cases) be just played by the player, just like they would one of their own PCs. A dominated creature, on the other hand, requires direct control and instructions for each and every choice.

Both should primarily be under the control of the PC though. The difference is that the created creature should not require as much PC supervision or instruction. It should just "naturally do what the caster expects", because the caster literally created it to do just that, and behave in just that manner.

The easiest way to avoid metagaming is to not have metaknowledge.

Some players might be able to do it, but why chance it?

If the consequence is you making decisions which the player would not have made if given the information and allowed to make a decision themselves, then the harm outweighs that risk of metagaming IMO.

Earlier in this post, you said its the GM's job to keep the game moving and avoid stalling out, right?

So what purpose does it serve allowing the minion-mancer PC to have a "solo scene" for each of his companions? It slows the game down, introduces a bunch of meta-knowledge, and gives one player disproportionate spotlight time. How does that help keep the game moving?

If the scene is relevant and the choices made matter, then you will save more time in the game by simply telling the player what's going on, and letting them make a decision than to decide yourself, and then get into an inevitable argument later on.

I think this loops back to your earlier insitence on IC RP for every scene. It takes very little time to say "your dominated shapeshifting demon has encountered a wall of fire blocking the entrance to one of the rooms in the castle you told her to explore. What do you want her to do?". Or "your animal companion has encountered a large cliff while out scouting. Do you want it to try climbing down? Or search for another way around?".

These are very simple "ask; get answer" narrations in the game. They don't take much time, but allow choices to be made, and empower the players along the way. The worst appraoch is "Your demon returns and found no treasure" (only for the player to discover later that there was treasure, but it was in the room behind the wall of fire, and you decided the demon wouldn't cross it), or "your animal companion doesn't return" (because you decided it would risk climbing down the cliff, and failed the roll and it is now lying on the bottom of a ravine with a broken leg).

You have to balance metaknowledge with player agency. I tend to lean heavily towards the latter. I can handle players who misuse metaknowledge. If they try it, that's on them and I can usually prevent it. But if I take player agency away, and the results are negative to the players, I have broken a trust that is hard to repair.

If, for example, we are running a DC superheroes game where we are trying to solve the mystery of Robin being kidnapped, does it really serve anything at all if we constantly cut away from the heroes to give Batman's player a solo scene where he RPs Robin trying to foil his captors on his own?

Is it possible for Robin to escape on his own? Then yes... you should play this out. If it's absolutely not possible, then don't. It's a judgement call. But if you get it wrong, and the player later discovers when they rescue Robin that the condition and method of his capture should have allowed him to have a shot at escaping, but you didn't give him one, that's going to generate an argument.

This also depends on the game (I've never played DC superheroes). In Champions, a dependent NPC (or similar, been a long time) would be someone who the player never plays (but is constantly getting into trouble), so it would be appropriate not to play the character. But if Robin is normally played by the player then yes, the player gets to play Robin. In Champions terms, if I have a PC with duplication, and one of the duplicates is captured, I would absolutely 100% expect the GM to allow me to play that scene out. It's my freaking character. I get to play it. Exceptions for if the charcter is unconscious/drugged the whole time, or otherwise completely incapable of doing anything at all.

Again, you come into this discussion with the presupposition that a certain level of influence over an NPC makes it "belong" to a player. I do not. NPCs belong to the GM. Which is not to say that the GM shouldn't RP them appropriately based on whatever influence the PC has over them, but ultimately, their behavior is the GM's call. And I know you don't agree with me, but as I said, I am not aware of any rulebook that doesn't state this to be the case.

You're playing wordgames again. Yes. NPCs are "under the control of the GM". Except when they are not. A dominated creature is explicitly under the direct control of the caster, with the exception for specific command they will not follow. So the player plays them. Animal companions, familiars and the like are also strongly attached to the PC that created/empowered/whatever'd them. So they should be played by the player. And yes. I'd absolutely argue that a self-aware illusion created by a PC, where the description literally says that the PC creates the personality of the illusionary being, should also be under the control of the player (in the same way any chracter in the game, who's personality the player created should be).

First, the PC is not the player. Most spells that give you control over something actually require you to give it instructions in character or otherwise exercise your control.

For example, D&D dominate has several paragraphs explaining all of its limitations and things that you can and can't do, and also makes it very clear that if you aren't present, it is very difficult to communicate instructions because you can't actually hijack their senses and directly learn what is going on around them.

Sigh. I feel like we're trod this ground many times already. The spell also clearly states that the caster controls them through a "telepathic link you establish with the creatures mind". If further states that you can not directly sense though its senses but have a general idea of what is going on, and can give instructions based on what is is experiencing or encountering.

There are very few things a dominated creature will refuse to do. For everything else, it should be a simple matter of "this is what's going on with the creature. What do you want it to do in response?" type gaming. It's just not that difficult. If you are actually requiring that the caster provide a detailed and specific set of instructions, and then interpreting those instructions for the player without telling them, and frequently having the dominated creature do things the player would not have wanted, then you are "doing it wrong" IMO.

Specter; the spell in question in the other thread, is mostly on the creation side, as it explicitly does not give any way for the caster to control their creation, although it does allow them to dictate the creature's general personality and motivation at the time of creation. Again though, the word general is doing a lot of work there (you can't just come up with a vast programming code of specific reactions to every occurance) and it only dictates the initial conditions, over time the creature's experiances can and will shape its personality.

Of course the player expects that since they created the illusion, they decide what the illusion's purpose/personality/methodology/whatever is. And they get to decide how the illusion will go about doing that. They assume that, for any decision the illusion may make while performing whatever it's designed to do, they will be the one who gets to decide the details. Why on earth should the GM do this? The PC cast the darn spell.

If that's really how you expect that spell to be run, then it's a useless spell and needs to be struck from your rules. No one would ever use it.

I'm not assuming anything. The actions indicate a possibility they might not be aware of things their characters would be. Like, they might assume that if they're going to be cut off in the underdark, that the king wouldn't have any influence in there, not realizing that they were establishing a foothold. The characters would, but the players might not.

If I tell them, and they did know? They say "yeah, we know, we just don't care" and the game moves on.

If I tell them and they didn't? They go "oh, yeah, okay, knowing that, my character would do XYZ instead".

If I don't tell them, and they find out, and it's something that would have changed what they would have done, and their characters would have known? That's when people get upset.

There's just very little downside.

I really don't get why people are so afraid of giving players info.

Yup. Little to zero downside. And a heck of a lot of upside. The absolute worst case here is that you maybe hint to the players a course of action ("the missing infomation must be important or the GM would not have reminded us about it"). But IMO, the consequences of not doing this are far far far worse than occasionally providing a hint to the players when they are otherwise "stuck".

Oh noes! You accidentally let slip that the information which you provided them in your game with the specific intent that they use it to get help from the Fae is something which they might be able to use to get help from the Fae. The absolute horror! The game is broken and cannot continue now! Oh wait! Actually, the game just kinda continues exactly as intended. Hmm....

Yes. Give them the oportunity to remember and use this infromation. But if they don't even bring it up or talk about it, you'd better make absolutely sure of things before proceeding. The consequence of not doing this is a table full of pissed off players.

There is nothing antagonistic about not being interested in playing certain types of games.

It's pretty antatonistic when you say "it's my way or you can't play".

I am not my players' slave. Nor are they mine.

Why am I required to participate in a game that I don't enjoy?

You can switch that around the other way too. I get the impression that you and your players are already in "bad game is better than no game" territory. So why not work with your players to make the game better and more enjoyable for everyone?

This is not about being charismatic, it is about refusing to participate in social scenes at all.

Again. Social scenes are not synonymous with "RP Dialogue". Social scenes can be narrated just as easily (more easily in fact) as they can be RP'd. I provided an example of this earlier.

Saying that your players not wanting to RP dialogue in character means they are "refusing to participate in social scenes at all" is a false statement. They can absolutely do social scenes. They just don't want to do full RP dialogue all the time is all. IMO, this is a very very very minor thing that you've chosen to make into a huge problem.

Well yes. The whole point is to stop the game, so that the DM is sure that the players are doing what they're doing deliberately rather than through ignorance. They're allowed to make stupid decisions, just as long as they're actually making the decision and not just blindly blundering into danger on accident.

Yup. Allow the players to make dumb decisions. But make sure they aren't making dumb decisions because you forgot to tell them something, or they have a different perception of the world/people around them, or whatever.

I did once see an argument break out literally because the GM and the player had a different mental picture of where a window was in relation to other things in the scene. The player thought the window was in one location and by jumping through it he could get in around behind the bad guys, while the GM (who's the authority on such things) knew that where the window was would provide the player no advantage at all, and would likely just result in him falling on the ground, right in front of the bad guys, and get himself killed. It was a minor thing, and was cleared up pretty quickly. But it's little mismatches like that which can happen all the time in RPGs and you need to be aware of them, and detect when you may be heading into one.

When in doubt, absolutely stop the game, and clarify things to the players. It will save a world of problems over time. The GM in the above example could have just allowed the player to go foward with the action, and let the chips fall where they may. Ironically, the argument broke out because the GM (being a nice GM) warned the player that their proposed action would likely not result in their desired action (cause he knew where the window actually was). The player kept arguing that he should be able to do what he was tying because he thought it was somewhere else instead because that was what he had heard (or thought he heard). It took a few back and forths before the GM realized this and finally clarified exactly where things were and the confusion was cleared up and the game resumed. It turned out that the player thought the GM was not allowing his action due to some skill rolls involved or something, when in reality it was a more direct "the window just plain isn't where you think it is".

When in doubt, clarify. Always.

I agree that the GM is responsible for informing players of in-character knowledge they need to roleplay their characters appropriately. Indeed, I don't think that anyone here has disputed that.

But I keep seeing people (I think it has been multiple people) saying that Talakeal dropped the ball by not telling the players what they needed to say to get help, on the grounds that their characters would have known that. But not only has Talakeal repeatedly stated that that isn't the case, that's clearly laid out in the opening post:

It's not that he didn't tell them "what they needed to say". He failed to remind them about information they had available to them. They were free to use the information any way they wished (or not at all). Talakeal made no effort to even determine if they remembered the information, much less whether they though it might be relevant to their interaction with the Fae.

And I've got to agree with Talakeal that the default is for each player to control only one specific "player character", as they're called, and for the Game Master control all of the others.

No. The default is that the player controls all characters that are under his control. That may usually be one "player character", but it's not uncommon for players to play multiple PCs in a game. PCs may also have familiars, or animal companions, or other things tied to themselves or their magic, or abilities, or whatever which, barring some specific reason otherwise, the player should be playing.

I would certainly expect that if I cast a spell that creates a free willed being, that exists for a purpose given to it by me, and with a personality created by me, that we are presented with two options:

1. I either write an infinitely long document defining every single possible situation it may find itself in, so as to ensure it behaves as I wish it to. And if I fail, the GM will decide what the creature does, and will inevitably have it do something I would not have wanted if given the choice.

2. Just let me run the creature.

One of those is vastly easier to manage in a game. Just let the player run the freaking creature. All the GM is doing otherwise is making the workload higher on themselves, and increasing the likelihood of conflict and argument in the game.

Work smarter, not harder.

Ok, I think maybe I am seeing where the miscommunication is...

I am picturing a scenario where the GM is running a game where dialogue is a part of the game and all of the players are happy with it, and then one of the players (either a new player or a current one) demands that dialogue be stripped from the game entirely because they consider it "tedious". In which case the one player is out of line and should find a group where everyone else feels that way.

OR a scenario where the entire table dislikes dialogue except for the GM, in which case the GM is out of line and should find a new group where everyone else is ok with dialogue.

And which is closer to your table?

You have posted many times on this forum about how your players don't like to talk to NPCs, and have to assign one player to do the social stuff. This heaviliy suggests a table full of players who have little to no interest in the degree of IC RP dialogue you seem to so adamantly demand. But maybe I've been misreading this and I'm completely wrong. It's possible.

I still don't track this. The kids didn't need to run to the Fae and say "The monsters in my house are going to attack the Muir Woods where I know you have a secret fort!". They just had to respond to a question asked of them in a reasonably direct fashion.

Respond how? With "The monsters in my house are going to attack the Muir Woods where I know you have a secret fort!", right? They did respond. The problem is that they didn't respond with the correct information (which was exactly what you said they didn't need to run to the Fae and tell them).

Also, the question asked was a very open ended "what are the fomori planning?". After asking this same question multiple times and not getting the "they're going to attack the Muir Woods" answer that was expected/required, most GMs will start to wonder why they are failing to answer the question. It could be for any of a number of reasons, but it's a good idea for the GM to find out, instead of just continuing to ask the same question and expecting a different answer.

Also, they didn't know about the secret fort, and it's entirely possible that the fact that they didn't know this is the very reason why they didn't mention the planned attack. They literally didn't think this was something the Fae were interested in. So... relevant because it points to a difference in mental map between the GM and the players. The GM knows both bits of information. That the werewovles are planning an attack on Muir woods and that the Fae have a holding in the Muir woods. The GM knows that one affects the other, and thus would lead to the Fae taking an interest in the planned attack.

But the players don't have the second piece of information. So the GM, having both pieces of information, assumed that the players will think to provide the first piece of info to the Fae, which the will put together with the second, and arrive at a resolution. But they didn't. We can conclude that the players are just idiots who could not make a super obvious speculation that "even though we've been told nothing about Fae in the Muir Woods, maybe they have some people there and would care about the werewolves planned attack, so we should tell them about this". Or, we can accept that they did not make this connection, so maybe it was not nearly as obvious a leap to make as the GM thought.

This isn't "My character needed to know that Ocean Beach was important to the Strange Old Man, so that is where I need to go to look for the glyph he inscribed on the pier to protect the area in order to learn about the secret community of Deep One Surfers living in the area". It's being asked after I discovered the glyph if I saw anything strange when I was down on the Ocean Beach pier and saying nothing.

That's not a fair analogy though. You tell them that the surfers are getting the "Ocean Beach Look" now and transforming into Deep Ones, but they keep refusing to help you deal with this because it doesn't infolve them, but you don't think to mention the glyph because you don't know that it's a secret symbol that means that one of their own members is in danger as well.

You told them all about the strange creatures, and the abductions, and the disappearances, you just didn't think to mention the glyph itself. And yeah. If you (the GM) know that the gllyph is relevant, but the players never mention it, it's kinda up to you to remind them about it. At least make sure they remember that it was one of the clues they found, so they have the option of mentioing it when seeking help. Then, if they still insist on not mentioning it, it's on them and not you.

[Mordar]

Respond how? With "The monsters in my house are going to attack the Muir Woods where I know you have a secret fort!", right? They did respond. The problem is that they didn't respond with the correct information (which was exactly what you said they didn't need to run to the Fae and tell them).

Also, the question asked was a very open ended "what are the fomori planning?". After asking this same question multiple times and not getting the "they're going to attack the Muir Woods" answer that was expected/required, most GMs will start to wonder why they are failing to answer the question. It could be for any of a number of reasons, but it's a good idea for the GM to find out, instead of just continuing to ask the same question and expecting a different answer.

Also, they didn't know about the secret fort, and it's entirely possible that the fact that they didn't know this is the very reason why they didn't mention the planned attack. They literally didn't think this was something the Fae were interested in. So... relevant because it points to a difference in mental map between the GM and the players. The GM knows both bits of information. That the werewovles are planning an attack on Muir woods and that the Fae have a holding in the Muir woods. The GM knows that one affects the other, and thus would lead to the Fae taking an interest in the planned attack.

But the players don't have the second piece of information. So the GM, having both pieces of information, assumed that the players will think to provide the first piece of info to the Fae, which the will put together with the second, and arrive at a resolution. But they didn't. We can conclude that the players are just idiots who could not make a super obvious speculation that "even though we've been told nothing about Fae in the Muir Woods, maybe they have some people there and would care about the werewolves planned attack, so we should tell them about this". Or, we can accept that they did not make this connection, so maybe it was not nearly as obvious a leap to make as the GM thought.

Did they respond? The synopsis version says they relayed that the werewolves were bad, and the fae were good, so fight them. I haven't seem any response to the "What are they doing/what do you know about them/what are they planning?" question. If they engage in the conversation and say any of a number of things ("They're making monsters", "They're talking about attacking things", "They want to take over SF", and, of course, the trigger "They're talking about attacking someone in the woods") you get the back and forth that leads to the successful completion of the scene. This wasn't a "select the one and only one perfect foil to proceed", it was "try and be responsive".

There was no reason for the Players to guess at the importance of the actions, rather just have a conversation and share information. The players simply did not want to do so. That is the issue, not the nature of the successful completion of the scene. The players had the relevant information and were *directly* prompted to share it and chose not to. They didn't have to "think to provide" that information. They just had to regurgitate. Not a bad option for a game group that doesn't seem to go beyond basics in a social encounter. Now, 100% agree that once it was clear that answer wasn't coming, do more. Like I suggested, other conversations in the room addressing the existence of the secret fort, etc.

Now, I again capitulate there is a 100% chance no scene I would run with players I would play with would ever have this problem. Why? Because my players wouldn't be that dead set against sharing information when it would get them something, they would trust me not to capital-f them in this kind of situation and they have a basic level of sociability that allows them to understand and interact with social situations without becoming a toddler. And I'd definitely have set the table with more information (like the existence of somethign in the woods that is important to the Fae unless there is a really good reason not to...

That's not a fair analogy though. You tell them that the surfers are getting the "Ocean Beach Look" now and transforming into Deep Ones, but they keep refusing to help you deal with this because it doesn't infolve them, but you don't think to mention the glyph because you don't know that it's a secret symbol that means that one of their own members is in danger as well.

You told them all about the strange creatures, and the abductions, and the disappearances, you just didn't think to mention the glyph itself. And yeah. If you (the GM) know that the gllyph is relevant, but the players never mention it, it's kinda up to you to remind them about it. At least make sure they remember that it was one of the clues they found, so they have the option of mentioing it when seeking help. Then, if they still insist on not mentioning it, it's on them and not you.

Not the goal of the situation I pictured in my head (didn't you use your Mordar Brain Goggles?!?) but you're right...though if they had the rest of the info we'd be moving forward in my CoC story anyway. Edit the original to say "It's being asked after I discovered the glyph if I saw any strange symbols or marking when I was down on the Ocean Beach pier and saying nothing."

- M