Players characters evading direct questions

[Kish]

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.

Yes, this.

If you don't want to change your gaming style at all, Talakeal, that's certainly your right, but maybe you should stop posting: my group broke down again, need advice! Or at least start those posts off with some variation on: I don't want to change anything I'm doing, I just want other people to agree that it's all Bob's fault.

[Talakeal]

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.

The stone-speak spell enables a social encounter where there otherwise wouldn't be one, it is still a social encounter. One that Brian made unnecessarily difficult with his belligerent approach.

The consequence of "stuck for hours" is self imposed, they could have done dozens of obvious things to continue on. Hell, they could have simply kept on going with the speak with stone spell, for example re-rolling the charisma test or casting the speak with stone spell on the party face.


Again though, this is kind of missing the forest for the trees. This is just one example of a recurring problem, that when the player's first approach doesn't work, they refuse to change approaches. And, your proposed solution of "therefore ensure the first solution always works, regardless of how little logical sense it makes or how bad the dice play out" is, imo, significantly worse than the problem.

Right. But you are playing at a table, which, by past statements by you, includes only one player even moderately interested 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 preference? Just a thought.

That's not quite what I said.

I said that he is the only one who is "really comfortable talking in character". That is vastly different from "even moderately interested in dialogue".

Bob is... capricious and moody? He has no problem talking in character when the mood strikes him, but often times he deems dialogue beneath him.

The other four are all relatively knew to RPGs, and are still getting the feelers for it. They are absolutely willing to try though, and are getting more comfortable talking (and thinking) in character every day, they just aren't all the way there yet.

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 stonenspeak 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 adamantly 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.

Sure, we don't always go into scene.

But again, this whole attitude seems kind of dismissive of the social pillar.

Like, imagine I was in here complaining about a TPK in combat.

Do you think anyone would advise me "Just skip combat. Its not worth risking a TPK over. When the PCs tell you they attack something, just cut to them looting its corpse. It takes ten seconds. Its not hard."

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.

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.

Yeah, like I said, we have a fundamentally different approach to RPGs. I am much less "task oriented" than you.

In CRPG parlance, I am there for a sandbox, not a theme park.

For me, getting to talk in character and explore a fictional world is an end unto itself.

I would never deem a scene a failure just because it took some extra time or the players didn't walk away with the maximum possible benefit.

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 trying 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 session 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.

Your methods would probably work (although I don't think you are counting on just how stubborn Bob can be). What I am saying is that, imo, they all cause much bigger issues than they solve.

Too me, it is less "stop hitting your hand with a hammer" and more "amputate your arm entirely".

Yes, in hindsight, in that one instance, your solutions would likely have prevented that specific problem. But they are going to cause much worse problems for me down the line if applied universally.

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 decision 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").

They were invited to a party and they showed up at the time and place the invitation said to arrive.

That's the "purpose of the scene". I'm not sure what you mean by "communicates it to the rest of the table without spoiling 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.

I am talking about when things don't go according to plan. A swerve. A betrayal. A twist. A surprise.

They go to hide out on Bespin, but find that the Empire got there first and set a trap. They go to Tir Asleen to get help from the good King and Queen, only to find a ruin which has already fallen to evil. They go to seek the counsel of Sarumon the wise, only to find that he is now in league with the enemy.

How would you go about establishing the goal of such a scene beforehand without giving away the big reveal?

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.

No. My players almost never talk to each other, and almost never come up with plans before hand. This causes a ton of issues for everyone involved, and I have tried everything in my power to get them to just talk to one another and brainstorm a bit to come up with a cohesive plan.

IMO, this is the cause of a majority of the issues at my table, and it is something that all of the proposed "solutions that Talakeal is too stubborn to act on" will not do anything to solve.

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.

I would be kind of pissed off if a GM ruled this way for me. If I am playing a character whose dump stat is charisma, and OOC describe how rude and demanding I am being, I don't want the NPCs to just acquiesce to my demands for information to "keep the game moving".

But again, I guess I am just not "task oriented" enough. Kind of like how I see flaws as ways to make my character unique and hope they come up frequently, whereas other people see them as free points and hope they never come up.

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 objectives were achieved.

Perhaps. But I would say the "fluff" is going to be far more memorable in the long run. For example, you remember Tasselhoff because of his personality, not because of his Open Locks percentage or backstab damage multiplier.

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.

Ok, now, just to clarify, do you actually think "flowery dialogue" comes into this at all? Or is it just a flourish of your post? A sort of meta-fluff if you will.

Ultimately, where do you draw the line for fluff though?

Like, do you think it should matter at all what approach I choose in a social situation? Like, if I choose to say, try and get the king to do me a favor by striking up a close rapport with him so that I can logically address each of his concerns vs. run in, drop my trousers, and tell him that he is a stupid jerk while waving my bare ass in his face?

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?

Again, this was a party of twelve mid-level characters, at full resources, with multiple powerful spell-casters. I can think of dozens of ways, both magical and mundane, to get past a simple trap-door. Quit focusing on the "why" their first attempt at bypassing it didn't work, that isn't relevant. The fact is, they are stuck here because they choose to be.

At this point, it isn't about rewards. It is about player psychology. They have either convinced themselves that they are helpless, or they are stubbornly holding the game hostage until they get their way because their first attempt didn't work.

In either case, I don't believe it is good for the long term health of the game to just give in and reward them for doing it.

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?

I do not agree with your premise, therefore I do not agree with your conclusion.

Creating a character is not the same as having control over the character.

A player can control Batman despite not being Bob Kane.

The player can play a pregen despite them being created by the GM.

If Bob quits my campaign, I can continue to run his character as an NPC.

Etc.

And again, you are still ignoring the word "general" in the spell description.

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.

IMO it not their decision to make.

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.

No player characters are present, therefore no player agency is violated.

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.

You are either drastically less trusting than Bob or drastically less tactically adept than Bob is.

This is absolutely how the spell is meant to be run, and Bob has used it to entirely beneficial effect dozens of times.

Indeed, if I struck it from the rules as you suggest, Bob would consider it a drastic nerf to his character, and would likely throw a huge tantrum and insist on making a new character.

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).

Its not word games. The player character is not the player.

Let me try an analogy for you, ok?

When I play Super Mario Brothers, I am in full control of Mario. I exercise my control of Mario through the NES controller. I can make him run, jump, duck, shoot fireballs, walk, etc.

But I cannot make him ask King Koopa to consider a diplomatic solution, or build a fortification out of the bricks, or spend his gold coins to bribe the hammer brothers, because the controller lacks those inputs.

Likewise, if I set the controller down and walk away, Mario will not continue playing the game exactly as I would want him to, because he has no way of receiving input from me without the controller.


Much like the controller, virtually every spell and ability in an RPG has limitations on how control is exercised and how instructions are given. Simply ignoring these limitations because its easier for you makes these spells and abilities for more powerful and versatile than originally intended, and, imo much worse, gives the player with access to such abilities a greatly disproportionate amount of spotlight time and influence over the narrative.

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.

Inevitable? Really?

I have played many RPGs with many groups over the years, and I can't recall this ever actually being an issue.


I mean, sure, sometimes players (mostly Bob) argue about a GM's ruling over how a specific spell or ability will play out at the table (as was the initial case being referenced) but that is not the same thing, and I don't think anyone is actually advocating in good faith for the players to take away referee duties from the GM to avoid arguments (not that this would avoid arguments mind you, it merely shifts the burden of whom is making the final call).

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.

I guess agree to disagree then? This situation sounds absolutely abysmal to me, and when I posited it to my players, they unanimously agreed.

It's my freaking character. I get to play it.

It isn't your character though. Batman is your character. Robin is your character's sidekick. That is the whole point.

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

I don't think so at all.

I am pretty sure that when someone sits down to play a game, the default assumption is that everyone plays by the same rules.

While I agree that reasonable accommodations and compromises can and should be made, I am by no means obligated to let someone play at my table and ignore the rules which the rest of us have all agreed to play under.

And, likewise, no player is obligated to remain at a table where they do not agree to the rules.


Like, this weekend, my family is getting together. There will almost certainly be Monopoly played. I don't think anyone would think it is "antagonistic" for them to tell me to take a hike if I demand that I get double the starting money and the ability to reroll 1s when I play.

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.

Again, this is a hypothetical you invented. Nobody at my table is unwilling to talk in character. Nor am I unwilling to allow a player to narrate their dialogue for me rather than act it out.

What my players said is that social situations should be resolved by dice because it is unfair to people who play characters who are more charismatic than they are (and vice versa). And I agree.

What I said is that the players need to give me the gist of what they said to the NPC and how they said it so that I can determine the NPC's reaction as well as set the difficulties for any dice rolls that might be involved.

Anything else is a hypothetical or a misunderstanding.


But, if one player is allowed to always walk away with the maximum benefit of all social scenes without any dice rolls, that is tremendously unfair to everyone else, and I would not participate in any game where that was the case. But again, it is just a hypothetical. (Honestly, its a bit like your "infinitely long contract" where you assume that just because a player could, in theory, spend infinite time and effort constructing a flawless artifact, the GM should just assume they did that and allow them infinite social leeway despite the fact that in reality they could never do such a thing.)

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.

Two things; first, the players insist they did not forget this face. So, either they are lying (which is a different problem) or this is irrelevant.

Second, I can't think of a way to check to see if the players forgot something without also telling them "Hey, do this if you want to succeed!" which imo takes away player agency and removes any aspect of challenge or decision making.

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.

Neither of these would fly at any table I have ever played at (nor is it the intent behind my system).

The actual choice is:

1: Give me the gist of the instructions your character is providing. Remember, in character you have about six seconds to come up with them, although I am not going to be a stickler about it. Then, trust me to run the NPC in good faith in accordance with those instructions. Do not expect semantic tricks or loopholes to work in either direction. Be willing to answer questions to clarify your intent if I am confused.

2: Don't cast the spell.

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.

Neither. See above.

If you don't want to change your gaming style at all, Talakeal, that's certainly your right, but maybe you should stop posting: my group broke down again, need advice! Or at least start those posts off with some variation on: I don't want to change anything I'm doing, I just want other people to agree that it's all Bob's fault.

But neither of those are true. I have already explained numerous ways in which I have changed my gaming style over the years and numerous times when people besides Bob were wholly or partially at fault, many of which are in this very thread!

[Telok]

???

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!

Heh. Not quite. Worst practice and what some some people seem to expect, is that the first time the PCs are out of sight of NPCs/cameras is that they scream "traitor!" and start shooting each other. When people talk about Paranoia PvP that's usually their mental picture.

Planting evidence, wordplay to get people to make mistakes, gathering evidence, alliances, creating evidence that someone else planted false evidence on you, etc., is preferred. By getting a table agreement that straight out unprovoked combat between PCs is off the table makes things more palatable to some folks. Ease them into it, so to speak.

Best practices is more along the lines of setting up your treason scoring system to be semi-opaque so folks have a vague handle on how hot their water is, but ensure that everyone knows that offing other troubleshooters without friend Computer's permission is itself high treason.

[GloatingSwine]

The stone-speak spell enables a social encounter where there otherwise wouldn't be one, it is still a social encounter. One that Brian made unnecessarily difficult with his belligerent approach.

Right, but this is where openness and communication comes in. If this spell animates some kind of kami within the stone which is not bound to truth by the spell, and its nature might depend on the shape and purpose of the stone, then Brian's character would know that and he would know that a belligerent approach wouldn't be the best one in the situation.

So when he says "I command the statue to tell me the way" you confirm with him based on that knowledge: "$CHARNAME knows this is a guardian statue and its kami will resist direct commands to reveal what it guards making for a harder test, but could be tricked or charmed more easily, do you want to proceed with the command?"

(Of course, if the spell does bind the stone to truth like 5e Stone-Talk then this is moot and the "I command" is just a rhetorical roleplaying flourish.)

[Reversefigure4]

Right, but this is where openness and communication comes in. If this spell animates some kind of kami within the stone which is not bound to truth by the spell, and its nature might depend on the shape and purpose of the stone, then Brian's character would know that and he would know that a belligerent approach wouldn't be the best one in the situation.

So when he says "I command the statue to tell me the way" you confirm with him based on that knowledge: "$CHARNAME knows this is a guardian statue and its kami will resist direct commands to reveal what it guards making for a harder test, but could be tricked or charmed more easily, do you want to proceed with the command?"

(Of course, if the spell does bind the stone to truth like 5e Stone-Talk then this is moot and the "I command" is just a rhetorical roleplaying flourish.)

Dollars to doughnuts says the as-written spell says nothing about the stone being alive, starting a social encounter, charisma rolls being required to operate the spell, or anything of the kind, leaving neither Bob nor the character any way of knowing his spell wouldn't work as intended until they get into play and discover Talakeal says it doesn't work.

[GloatingSwine]

Well yes, there is an assumption that the nature and operation of the spell is transparent to the players before they decide to learn it, rather than the whole exercise being a game of Mornington Crescent with dice. "Brian can't cast that spell because he's in Nidd"

[Jason]

If you don't want to change your gaming style at all, Talakeal, that's certainly your right, but maybe you should stop posting: my group broke down again, need advice! Or at least start those posts off with some variation on: I don't want to change anything I'm doing, I just want other people to agree that it's all Bob's fault.

Kish and gbaji are not alone here. I am also getting the impression, Talakeal, that you were not looking for advice, but for commiseration.

My experience is that failures like the kind you describe are nearly always avoidable if you follow advice like gbaji's - when the players say they're going to do something that doesn't make sense, stop the scene, break character, and make sure the players haven't forgotten vital information and understood the situation the same way you have before you adjudicate their decision.

If the adventure is behind the false tomb then it's your job as GM to get the players past the false tomb with minimum fuss. If you get some cool roleplaying out of the false tomb encounter, that's gravy, but letting the players get stuck in the false tomb for three hours of precious game time doesn't serve anyone.

Heh. Not quite. Worst practice and what some some people seem to expect, is that the first time the PCs are out of sight of NPCs/cameras is that they scream "traitor!" and start shooting each other. When people talk about Paranoia PvP that's usually their mental picture.

Ah, you're not saying "don't play the PvP aspect,' but "play the PvP aspect with more subtlety." Yeah, first-time Paranoia players tend to lack subtlety.

Really, if your group says "we're not comfortable with a PvP game," them my answer is "then we won't be playing Paranoia."

[Mordar]

Ah, you're not saying "don't play the PvP aspect,' but "play the PvP aspect with more subtlety." Yeah, first-time Paranoia players tend to lack subtlety.

Really, if your group says "we're not comfortable with a PvP game," them my answer is "then we won't be playing Paranoia."

Now I feel bad. We didn't have PvP in Paranoia. We simply never had enough clones to get to that point.

Best part of the game: Hearing the NPC names in the adventures.

- M

[Telok]

Ah, you're not saying "don't play the PvP aspect,' but "play the PvP aspect with more subtlety." Yeah, first-time Paranoia players tend to lack subtlety.

Really, if your group says "we're not comfortable with a PvP game," them my answer is "then we won't be playing Paranoia."

Like I said, it also depends on what people mean by "PvP game". For some just taking out direct interpersonal physical violence between PCs makes it not PvP. For others even lying to or not helping another PC will be considered PvP (that person had some odd trust issues tho). I can't say yes or no without fairly precicely knowing the definions of PvP being considered.

Dollars to doughnuts says the as-written spell says nothing about the stone being alive, starting a social encounter, charisma rolls being required to operate the spell, or anything of the kind, leaving neither Bob nor the character any way of knowing his spell wouldn't work as intended until they get into play and discover Talakeal says it doesn't work.

Yeah, that's ****ed me over every single ****ing time I've tried that spell in D&D. One GM ran it as the stones only experiencing pressure, heat, wet/dry, and light/dark. Another took "dumb as a rock" literally and its like trying to talk to little kids with no vocabulary ovrr single syllable words. Its like illusions, speak with dead, and some 'charm person' type spells. Without explicit, clear, good quality, and high visibility guidance on how to run them some GMs think they work in ways the screw you over for using them. And they aren't wrong because without actual rules or really good guidelines its all up to GM whim & experience.

[Talakeal]

Right, but this is where openness and communication comes in. If this spell animates some kind of kami within the stone which is not bound to truth by the spell, and its nature might depend on the shape and purpose of the stone, then Brian's character would know that and he would know that a belligerent approach wouldn't be the best one in the situation.

So when he says "I command the statue to tell me the way" you confirm with him based on that knowledge: "$CHARNAME knows this is a guardian statue and its kami will resist direct commands to reveal what it guards making for a harder test, but could be tricked or charmed more easily, do you want to proceed with the command?"

(Of course, if the spell does bind the stone to truth like 5e Stone-Talk then this is moot and the "I command" is just a rhetorical roleplaying flourish.)

This is correct. This is an animistic setting, and your first paragraph is how it is meant to function.

So, when Brian told me he was going to command it, I tried to solve the problem with an IC, by having the party face (whose player had left the group and was now an NPC) give Brian's character a quick rundown on how to con someone, by establishing a rapport first, then making them route for you, and trying to convince them the suggestion was their idea, etc.

Brian shrugged and then continued to demand the stone answer him, so I figured he was just being stubborn (as Bob and Dave so often are) and gave him the DC based on bluntly making a demand from a stranger, which he failed due to his low charisma and lack of social skills combined with cold dice.

Again though, I thought the problem was he was being stubborn / not wanting to put effort into coming up with an argument, but the problem was he misunderstood how the spell worked. Neither of us understood this at the time, though we later hashed it out.

Dollars to doughnuts says the as-written spell says nothing about the stone being alive, starting a social encounter, charisma rolls being required to operate the spell, or anything of the kind, leaving neither Bob nor the character any way of knowing his spell wouldn't work as intended until they get into play and discover Talakeal says it doesn't work.

"Song of Stone allows stones and rocks to share their knowledge with the caster. The subject can communicate verbally with the abjurer as if they could both speak a common language.
Note that this spell does not guarantee that the subject will be friendly to the caster or have the desired information. In addition, rocks will often possess an alien mindset which will take some getting acquainted with before a genuine exchange of ideas can occur."

I would like mine with chocolate frosting and rainbow sprinkles please!

(Although I suppose you are *technically* right that the spell description doesn't specifically say how to get information out of an unfriendly NPC; for that you would need to look in the sections on the various social skills).

If the adventure is behind the false tomb then it's your job as GM to get the players past the false tomb with minimum fuss. If you get some cool roleplaying out of the false tomb encounter, that's gravy, but letting the players get stuck in the false tomb for three hours of precious game time doesn't serve anyone.

The broader issue here is that my players shut down if their first approach doesn't yield fruit. I am really trying to break them of this habit and teach them that it is ok to try different things.

Sitting in an empty tomb for hours *sucks* for everyone. But I am hoping the players will figure out that they have the power to do something about it.

If I simply wave my hands and distort the game's mechanics and / or setting so they automatically get past the obstacle without any risk, expenditure of resources, or OOC effort, then what am I teaching them in the long run besides that acting helpless is the easiest and best path to victory?

I mean, I know the GM is not a parent, but it really feels like being told that the best solution to a child throwing a tantrum because you won't buy them toys and let them have candy for dinner is to give them their own credit card and amazon account so they can order all the toys and candy they want.

Kish and gbaji are not alone here. I am also getting the impression, Talakeal, that you were not looking for advice, but for commiseration.

My experience is that failures like the kind you describe are nearly always avoidable if you follow advice like gbaji's - when the players say they're going to do something that doesn't make sense, stop the scene, break character, and make sure the players haven't forgotten vital information and understood the situation the same way you have before you adjudicate their decision.

That is partly true, yes.

Another part is that people tend to lose the forest for the trees. Like, this thread was about why players won't answer direct questions, which is a phenomenon I have seen many times, often in games where I wasn't even involved. And it never really got explored, instead it got derailed by discussions of when, why, whether, and how you should give players OOC advice when stuck, when my players claim that wasn't even what was happening.

Likewise, we get into all these discussions of hypothetical situations where the GM is having the PCs minions turn on them, or the PCs making intentionally hostile minions, or players who refuse to speak in character, or whether or not tongues should require a charisma roll, or other things that are only tangentially related.


And a lot of the time, we look at the cause rather than the symptoms. For example, a ton of my stories boil down to "I made a ruling Bob didn't agree with, Bob acted out." Rather than discussing how to handle a player who doesn't trust / respect the authority of the GM or acts out when told "no", we debate the specific instance again. But the thing is, you are only seeing times when I ruled against Bob and he ruled out, I don't post if I rule in his favor or he doesn't act out; it happens plenty, but it doesn't make a thread. So then, we get a lot of people debating the specific ruling, which I have already thought about, looked at from multiple angles, heard Bob's arguments for, and then come to a conclusion and decided against them. So yeah, trying to get me to change my mind once I have already analyzed the issue and come to a conclusion is going to, most often, lead to a pointless argument where I am not going to give ground.

On the other hand, most every conversation I have ever had with Gbaji boils down to him looking at a specific problem, and proposing some broad solution that, while it would probably solve the problem at hand, would both create far bigger problems and also disrupt the way the game is played to everyone's detriment. For example, assuming anyone who shares a common language can simply handle all social interactions off screen and walk away with all pertinent knowledge, letting people play minions as second PCs, and telling the PCs OOC how to reach their IC goals just in case they forgot some vital piece of information would probably, in hindsight, have solved the specific problem. But, going forward, they are going to create drastic problems when it comes to game balance, player agency, and session pacing that are, imo, far bigger issues than what they were implemented to solve.

[GloatingSwine]

This is correct. This is an animistic setting, and your first paragraph is how it is meant to function.

So, when Brian told me he was going to command it, I tried to solve the problem with an IC, by having the party face (whose player had left the group and was now an NPC) give Brian's character a quick rundown on how to con someone, by establishing a rapport first, then making them route for you, and trying to convince them the suggestion was their idea, etc.

Brian shrugged and then continued to demand the stone answer him, so I figured he was just being stubborn (as Bob and Dave so often are) and gave him the DC based on bluntly making a demand from a stranger, which he failed due to his low charisma and lack of social skills combined with cold dice.

Again though, I thought the problem was he was being stubborn / not wanting to put effort into coming up with an argument, but the problem was he misunderstood how the spell worked. Neither of us understood this at the time, though we later hashed it out.

This is why you solve this with out-of-character confirmation. Brian misunderstood the spell in a way his character would not have.

Telling him "$CHARNAME knows the spirit of the statue will resist direct commands but could be deceived" would explain the spell in a way that emphasised what was relevant. (His character, not another one, you're not telling him what to do you're filling in information that his character knows because they know how to do this spell but Brian has either not read, not understood, or misremembered in the moment because of thinking about other spells in other systems that work differently.)

I know you've said you don't want to metagame, but part of the DM's role at the table is metagaming because you need to have one eye on how the game is flowing in order to make sure that it keeps doing so. Keeping the game flowing includes spotting when players and characters are no longer on the same page as each other and using out-of-character voice to resolve that disconnection.

If a player is doing something that seems off based on their character's knowledge and motivation, ask the player to confirm and fill in knowledge the character should have.

You can't do this the other way around because the player is the one with the fallible brain-meats and the character is not, they are perfect in our imaginings unless the dice say otherwise. You need to fill the player in and have that proceed to the character.

[Talakeal]

This is why you solve this with out-of-character confirmation. Brian misunderstood the spell in a way his character would not have.

Telling him "$CHARNAME knows the spirit of the statue will resist direct commands but could be deceived" would explain the spell in a way that emphasised what was relevant. (His character, not another one, you're not telling him what to do you're filling in information that his character knows because they know how to do this spell but Brian has either not read, not understood, or misremembered in the moment because of thinking about other spells in other systems that work differently.)

I know you've said you don't want to metagame, but part of the DM's role at the table is metagaming because you need to have one eye on how the game is flowing in order to make sure that it keeps doing so. Keeping the game flowing includes spotting when players and characters are no longer on the same page as each other and using out-of-character voice to resolve that disconnection.

If a player is doing something that seems off based on their character's knowledge and motivation, ask the player to confirm and fill in knowledge the character should have.

You can't do this the other way around because the player is the one with the fallible brain-meats and the character is not, they are perfect in our imaginings unless the dice say otherwise. You need to fill the player in and have that proceed to the character.

Yeah. In hindsight you are correct.

At the time, I didn't understand what the issue was; I thought Brian was just being stubborn about not wanting to come up with an argument as he has in the past, and he didn't say anything because he didn't know he had misread the spell. It was absolutely a communication issue, and we absolutely could have resolved it easily if we had been better about being open and reading the other person.


But again, that still has nothing to do with the fact that Brian (and the other 4-5 players, I can't recall if we had replaced Dave yet) responding to the failure of the speak with stone spell by sitting there helplessly for several hours when they had a vast plethora of what are imo, obvious solutions both magical and mundane at their disposal.

[GloatingSwine]

But again, that still has nothing to do with the fact that Brian (and the other 4-5 players, I can't recall if we had replaced Dave yet) responding to the failure of the speak with stone spell by sitting there helplessly for several hours when they had a vast plethora of what are imo, obvious solutions both magical and mundane at their disposal.

That's another "keep the game flowing" thing though. If they're not coming up with anything on their initiative, go round the table and put each player on the spot and ask them what their character will do to try and find the path forward, and if they can't think of anything give them a default like "which part of the room would you like to search?". Eventually one of them will pick the statue and you can tell them they find the switch and carry on.

Or they'll come up with something that's close enough to merit either a check or a success and you can do that.

In cases like this as well remember that failure can be a signpost pointing to success. If Brian insists on the contest of wills and fails his check tell him after you've played out the statue's rejection "You're pretty sure the statue could give you the answer if you took the right approach to talking to it."

[Talakeal]

In cases like this as well remember that failure can be a signpost pointing to success. If Brian insists on the contest of wills and fails his check tell him after you've played out the statue's rejection "You're pretty sure the statue could give you the answer if you took the right approach to talking to it."

Pretty sure I did exactly that, although I said it through an NPC.

Hmmm... maybe that is an issue? Players are so used to ignoring NPCs and skipping cut scenes in video games that they don't realize the GM is using them to convey vital information and helpful hints?

[Jason]

Brian shrugged and then continued to demand the stone answer him, so I figured he was just being stubborn (as Bob and Dave so often are) and gave him the DC based on bluntly making a demand from a stranger, which he failed due to his low charisma and lack of social skills combined with cold dice.

Again though, I thought the problem was he was being stubborn / not wanting to put effort into coming up with an argument, but the problem was he misunderstood how the spell worked. Neither of us understood this at the time, though we later hashed it out.

The game probably would have been better served if you had stopped the scene and made sure you and Brian had the same understanding of how the spell worked and what would be required to get what he wanted from the statue rather than you shaking your head and saying "I guess he's just being stubborn" and then having him make a more difficult roll than he would have if you had been on the same page.

The broader issue here is that my players shut down if their first approach doesn't yield fruit. I am really trying to break them of this habit and teach them that it is ok to try different things.

How are you trying to teach them this? By letting them sit twiddling their thumbs with nothing happening for three hours? That's not the method I would use.

Sitting in an empty tomb for hours *sucks* for everyone. But I am hoping the players will figure out that they have the power to do something about it.

If I simply wave my hands and distort the game's mechanics and / or setting so they automatically get past the obstacle without any risk, expenditure of resources, or OOC effort, then what am I teaching them in the long run besides that acting helpless is the easiest and best path to victory?

I view using a spell slot as an expenditure of resources. I suppose it might not have been with the system you were playing.

The way you described the situation made it sound very much like there was no risk. They failed a couple rolls and then sat in the tomb for three hours and nothing happened - no traps were sprung, no wandering monsters came by - no risk. If there's no risk and no time pressure, why not just let them find the switch and enter the tomb where the real adventure is?

I mean, I know the GM is not a parent, but it really feels like being told that the best solution to a child throwing a tantrum because you won't buy them toys and let them have candy for dinner is to give them their own credit card and amazon account so they can order all the toys and candy they want.

Do you habitually view your players as children throwing tantrums when they don't get what they want on the first try?

Another part is that people tend to lose the forest for the trees. Like, this thread was about why players won't answer direct questions, which is a phenomenon I have seen many times, often in games where I wasn't even involved. And it never really got explored, instead it got derailed by discussions of when, why, whether, and how you should give players OOC advice when stuck, when my players claim that wasn't even what was happening.

My players don't do this. They don't refuse to answer direct questions from NPCs unless they have a good in character reason for not answering.

What was the point of asking the question "why won't my players answer direct questions?" if you didn't want a discussion of what to do when your players refuse to answer a straight question and what the possible causes are?

For example, assuming anyone who shares a common language can simply handle all social interactions off screen and walk away with all pertinent knowledge...

That does not appear to be what Gbaji was arguing. His argument was basically the same as mine - your players are in a false tomb. The real adventure is on the other side of the false tomb. They failed one roll and now have used a spell slot, a valuable resource. Why not let the spell do the job and get on to the real adventure?

...letting people play minions as second PCs...

What is wrong with doing this?

I'm doing it right now in the D&D campaign I am running (the Goodman Games 5E conversion of The Temple of Elemental Evil), where the party recruited two extra fighters to beef up their group. Basically the PC gets to control the henchman in combat while I continue to do the role-playing bits for the henchman, and in combat I can override the PC's decision if I think the minion wouldn't act in a particular way.

It's worked great.

...and telling the PCs OOC how to reach their IC goals just in case they forgot some vital piece of information...

Also not really what Gbaji was arguing. PCs do occasionally (if not often) forget vital information.

If you as the GM see that the PCs are forgetting something that their characters wouldn't forget, then yes you have to remind them about it, even at the risk of giving away that it's something useful.

This isn't cheating. It isn't being soft on the players.

It's a recognition that the players are not the characters - the same way that letting them roll a die to resolve a social interaction is a recognition that the players are not the characters.

[GloatingSwine]

Pretty sure I did exactly that, although I said it through an NPC.

Hmmm... maybe that is an issue? Players are so used to ignoring NPCs and skipping cut scenes in video games that they don't realize the GM is using them to convey vital information and helpful hints?

Yes, it is.

The problem is an out-of-character problem. Brian the player at the table can't think of other actions to declare for his character (in this case because he has misunderstood one of his tools).

And because "Brian forgot/misunderstood something" is a thing which is possible because Brian is an actual person with a meat brain which can forget or misunderstand things, and "Brian's character forgot/misunderstood something (without failing an explicit check to recall or understand)" is not because Brian's character is not a real being which can forget or misunderstand things, you start with out-of-character information every time.

Whenever the players' actions don't make sense, assume a disconnect in the player and fix it out of character, the gentle way of fixing it is "your character knows X, in light of that do you still want to do Y". It's gentle because it's not telling them what to do, either in DM voice or NPC voice, it's coming from within (their character knows a thing).

The two big things that will cause this are either the player has forgotten how a rule works or not anticipated a consequence which would be obvious to the character in the moment.

[Darth Credence]

The broader issue here is that my players shut down if their first approach doesn't yield fruit. I am really trying to break them of this habit and teach them that it is ok to try different things.

This sounds to me like you are trying to train disobedient puppies. That you are effectively trying to rub their noses in their messes so they don't do that again.

[Mordar]

How are you trying to teach them this? By letting them sit twiddling their thumbs with nothing happening for three hours? That's not the method I would use.

This sounds to me like you are trying to train disobedient puppies. That you are effectively trying to rub their noses in their messes so they don't do that again.

I am curious - what would be your approaches to this issue? Assume entrenched behavior, and for whatever godforsaken reason an inability to choose a different group/gm/pastime.

Aside: Don't see this as rubbing noses in messes at all, just waiting for a positive behavior to reward...but that may be rose colored glasses.

- M

[Kish]

My answer is that "I am really trying to break [my players] of [any] habit and teach them [something they did not sign up for as we're playing a game, not in a classroom]" is an utterly inappropriate attitude. If it's "waiting for positive behavior to reward" then that means that the default state is "I stare flatly at you as everyone gets increasingly frustrated," and if that's one's default state for roleplaying games, that one should stop trying to play them and take up basket weaving instead.

If I'm not willing to stop playing with those people, then that means one of two things. Either 1) there are many aspects of playing with them that we do all enjoy, and I can alter my behavior to avoid running into this one problem. In ways that several of us have already laid out, to be greeted with Talakeal essentially saying he doesn't feel he should be the one changing his behavior.

Or 2) I am focused on winning against them, not on a fun game.

[Talakeal]

This sounds to me like you are trying to train disobedient puppies. That you are effectively trying to rub their noses in their messes so they don't do that again.

It is a behavior I really wish they would stop because it isn't fun for anyone.

The problem is that if I just reward the behavior by hand-waving away whatever obstacle they were stuck at without any risk or resource expenditure, then suddenly it becomes the optimal way to play.

In MMOs, they call this a "degenerative gameplay problem" where the optimal solution is also the least fun.

Do you habitually view your players as children throwing tantrums when they don't get what they want on the first try?

It was an analogy, as I acknowledged in the part you quoted.

Let me be blunt: I feel like rewarding behavior is unlikely to change that behavior.

The game probably would have been better served if you had stopped the scene and made sure you and Brian had the same understanding of how the spell worked and what would be required to get what he wanted from the statue rather than you shaking your head and saying "I guess he's just being stubborn" and then having him make a more difficult roll than he would have if you had been on the same page.

It wasn't just an off the cuff guess.

We had a conversation about it, the problem was we were both talking past one another as we didn't know what the other one was thinking.

I don't recall exactly, it was several years ago, but I suspect I only dropped it when Brian started to lose his temper, which he often does when he perceives someone as criticizing him or questioning his intelligence.

How are you trying to teach them this? By letting them sit twiddling their thumbs with nothing happening for three hours? That's not the method I would use.

Generally, by pleading with them and cajoling them to try things, and walking through the problem with them step by step and going over their character sheets to help them find any abilities they might have that could bypass the obstacle, as well as any clues they might have found to help them with it.

What was the point of asking the question "why won't my players answer direct questions?" if you didn't want a discussion of what to do when your players refuse to answer a straight question and what the possible causes are?

Because I don't view it as a big enough problem to warrant a drastic solution.

Sometimes a scene gets stretched out a bit, sometimes the players get a little disappointment, but ultimately the game moves on in a new and exciting direction and the game goes on.

Mostly, I am just really confused and baffled as to why it happens in the first place; especially when the players insist they were paying attention and didn't forget anything.

That does not appear to be what Gbaji was arguing. His argument was basically the same as mine - your players are in a false tomb. The real adventure is on the other side of the false tomb. They failed one roll and now have used a spell slot, a valuable resource. Why not let the spell do the job and get on to the real adventure?

What is wrong with doing this?

Because this makes spells super unbalanced (and makes no sense in character). Spells are already strong, making it so that players don't have to choose the right spell for the situation or use spells in the right way just pushes them over the top.

And again, this is all with the hindsight that the game would stall out forever rather than the players simply trying a different spell or mundane ability as would be expected outside of bizarro world.

What is wrong with doing this?

I'm doing it right now in the D&D campaign I am running (the Goodman Games 5E conversion of The Temple of Elemental Evil), where the party recruited two extra fighters to beef up their group. Basically the PC gets to control the henchman in combat while I continue to do the role-playing bits for the henchman, and in combat I can override the PC's decision if I think the minion wouldn't act in a particular way.

It's worked great.

I run minions the exact same way you do.

The green text is the issue.

The other thing up for debate is if you allow the players to continue to play the minions (including talking for them) when they are off on their own with no PCs about. I say no, because this disrupts the narrative, gives one player unreasonable spotlight time, and is just an invitation for metagaming, but Gbaji strongly disagrees.

[Mordar]

My answer is that "I am really trying to break [my players] of [any] habit and teach them [something they did not sign up for as we're playing a game, not in a classroom]" is an utterly inappropriate attitude. If it's "waiting for positive behavior to reward" then that means that the default state is "I stare flatly at you as everyone gets increasingly frustrated," and if that's one's default state for roleplaying games, that one should stop trying to play them and take up basket weaving instead.

If I'm not willing to stop playing with those people, then that means one of two things. Either 1) there are many aspects of playing with them that we do all enjoy, and I can alter my behavior to avoid running into this one problem. In ways that several of us have already laid out, to be greeted with Talakeal essentially saying he doesn't feel he should be the one changing his behavior.

Or 2) I am focused on winning against them, not on a fun game.

Caveat: I know we only see the tiny slice of the games that T brings to us and it suffers heavily from the bias of negative reporting...but if the acting out and pout fests occurred in a game I was part of I'd probably last one session unless there was incredibly compelling reasons to continue. Free time is just too valuable. But acting from the assumptions I laid out (which seem to be the case), we plow forward.

Yeah, teaching outside a classroom should never happen. Come on. Especially not when one person knows a game better than others that they all decide to play. There's no learning in games!

Absolutely agree the flat stare (if that really happened) is again support for the Corporal Hicks option...I'd certainly bread-crumb things and find *any* reason to grab on to a positive action that could get to an action declaration that had *any* chance of success and reinforce the heck out of it. Leading questions, NPC advice, GM advice, whatever (note: those are ways to break habits and teach players...ok, okay, I'll get off that point). But let's assume he was accurately relaying the events...the players disregarded his efforts to suggest other options, actively dismissed the advice on how to optimize the one other option they chose, and even generate hostility when presented with advice.

My experience would point to subsequent options that are off the table (change GMs, change to non-RPG games, play only co-op stuff). You suggest just sacrificing enjoyment to capitulate to maybe just one or two of the players. I think that is probably a pretty common end action. Is there anything in between? Any other way to incentivize change in the players that make the experience mutually enjoyable, other than sacrifice one or the other?

- M

[Darth Credence]

I am curious - what would be your approaches to this issue? Assume entrenched behavior, and for whatever godforsaken reason an inability to choose a different group/gm/pastime.

Aside: Don't see this as rubbing noses in messes at all, just waiting for a positive behavior to reward...but that may be rose colored glasses.

- M

The question is fundamentally flawed - I would never continue to play such a game. If no other group could be found, I'd find a different hobby.

But, I'll give it a shot, both from the standpoint of what I would do as a player in the game, and what I would do as a GM with the players as explained. To be clear, so we don't have a big back and forth on what the situation is, this is my understanding of the specific situation:
The players were in a tomb. The adventure on tap required them to find a secret door to proceed. The entrance to the secret area opens by pushing a button. One player, Brian, cast a spell to talk to the statue to ask the way forward, phrasing it as "command" the stone to tell them. The DM had a PC turned NPC explain how to con someone. The player shrugged and continued to demand. The GM told them to roll for persuasion, and they did not succeed. They then proceeded to do nothing of import for the remainder of the session. Later, the DM asked Brian about it and they figured out that they did not have the same understanding of the spell.

If that's correct, then the following is what I would do. If not, then I would need clarity.

If I were Brian:
When the DM had the NPC tell me how to run a con, I would say out of character to the DM, "Why is he explaining this to me?" A reasonable DM would tell me something like, "He's giving advice on how to convince the kama in the stone to cooperate with you." I would respond with, "Why? Doesn't this spell just have the statue tell me what I want to know?" Reasonable DM: "No, it animates the kama of the stone, which lets you communicate but does not mean it must tell you anything. In this world, everything has a spirit, and if you can figure out a way to communicate with them, it means that you can have an encounter just like you could have one with a bartender or guard in town." Me, "Oh, I misunderstood the spell. Alright, then I'll do what the NPC said as I try to convince the stone to tell me how to go forward." Reasonable DM, "After cajoling the stone for a brief time, you get it to slip and reveal the location of the switch to open the passage. As you press the button, you see a stone in the floor drop down, and you smell stale air, trapped for millennia..."

If I were Brian with a bad DM:
When the DM had the NPC tell me how to run a con, I would say out of character to the DM, "Why is he explaining this to me?" Bad DM: "He thinks you should know." Me: "Why?" BDM: "I can't tell you, that would be metagaming. This is the best I can do, you'll have to figure the rest out for yourself." Me: "OK. What is the stone doing?" BDM: "Whatever do you mean?" Me:"I mean, I cast the spell and told the stone to tell me where the path is." BDM: "OH. Well, I guess you need to roll a persuasion check." Me: "Why?" BDM: "So we can figure out if the stone will tell you." Me: "Why doesn't the magic cover that?" BDM: "It would be metagaming to tell you." Me: "Ah. I understand now. Thanks for having me over, I appreciate the time. Guys, I'm out, this is not a game I want to play."

If I were a different player at the table:
At any point during the discussion - Me: "What are we doing here?" BDM: "We're playing. You guys need to figure out how to get through here." Sure, but we've been at this for half an hour, and it's pretty clear nothing is happening. If we can't find whatever we're looking for here in that much real time, it probably means we've done something wrong. So, group, should we head back to town and figure out something else to do?" BDM: "No, you just have to figure out what you're supposed to do. You guys have bad habits that I'm trying to break for you. It's OK to try different things!" Me: "I'm sure you're right. Right now, I'm going to try not being here. Good luck, all."

If I were the GM with a reasonable Brian:
Brian: "I want to cast speak to stones and command the stone to tell me how to move forward." Me: "You can cast that, but a quick clarification - all the spell does is let you speak with the spirit of the stone. It does not force it to obey you." Brian: "Oh. I didn't realize that. So what do I need to do." Me: "You can play out the discussion if you guys want, but I realize we've been here a while. You can just tell me the general idea of how you want to convince them, and I'll let you know what to do from there." Now, if we had wasted a bunch of time, whatever they say, we move on. If this was their first attempt, I'd have them roll, and if they failed, "The spirit of the stone is not swayed by your words. They tell you, "You have no business here, or in the place beyond. Leave this place." and have it go quiet, then let them try something else. If they think to search the room, I'll probably just let them succeed. If they don't even search, I would have whomever had the highest insight or perception notice that the statue froze back up with its eyes pointing a different direction than before, and have them follow the eyeline to the button.

If I were the GM with a bad Brian:
Brian: "I want to cast speak to stones and command the stone to tell me how to move forward." Me: "You can cast that, but a quick clarification - all the spell does is let you speak with the spirit of the stone. It does not force it to obey you." Brian: "That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Just have it tell me." Me, recalibrating the entire game in my head: "OK, what's your persuasion score?" Doesn't matter what it is, "Luckily, that's enough that the statue agrees. A doorway opens, leading you onward." I then cut the vast majority of content, ensuring that we finish the current mission today. When all is done, "Great game, guys, thanks for playing. Just so everyone knows, I have a shift in my schedule that means I'll need to stop playing for a while. We got to a good end today, so that will be my last session for now. I'll let you guys know if I can play again, but don't feel like you have to wait on me." And I would never play with Brian again.

ETA:

It is a behavior I really wish they would stop because it isn't fun for anyone.

The problem is that if I just reward the behavior by hand-waving away whatever obstacle they were stuck at without any risk or resource expenditure, then suddenly it becomes the optimal way to play.

In MMOs, they call this a "degenerative gameplay problem" where the optimal solution is also the least fun.

Yep, you're treating them like disobedient puppies.

[Kish]

You suggest just sacrificing enjoyment to capitulate to maybe just one or two of the players.

No. Don't stick words in my mouth.

I suggest sacrificing whatever weird ego investment "I," in this hypothetical you proposed, have in them solving my puzzle, which they are clearly uninterested in engaging with--all of them--so that we can get on with parts of the game we do all enjoy, instead of spending three hours sitting there so I can tell strangers later how badly they behaved. Do not ask "What would you do in that situation?" if you are unwilling to accept the answers you get without heavy editing.

Also, looking back at what I actually said that got you sarcastically going on about how learning never happens outside a classroom: Do you seriously, honestly believe any of Talakeal's players signed up for him to teach them how they should play RPGs?

[Mordar]

The question is fundamentally flawed - I would never continue to play such a game. If no other group could be found, I'd find a different hobby.

Agreed as noted.

They then proceeded to do nothing of import for the remainder of the session.

If that's correct, then the following is what I would do. If not, then I would need clarity.

Only difference in my understanding is that there was a great deal of solicitation for action.

Agree with anything snipped.

If I were a different player at the table:
At any point during the discussion - Me: "What are we doing here?" BDM: "We're playing. You guys need to figure out how to get through here." Sure, but we've been at this for half an hour, and it's pretty clear nothing is happening. If we can't find whatever we're looking for here in that much real time, it probably means we've done something wrong. So, group, should we head back to town and figure out something else to do?" BDM: "No, you just have to figure out what you're supposed to do. You guys have bad habits that I'm trying to break for you. It's OK to try different things!" Me: "I'm sure you're right. Right now, I'm going to try not being here. Good luck, all."

My disagreement here is driven by the difference in understanding above. I would (and assume you would) have proceeded with more clarification and investigation (e.g. "We failed out search rolls, so I intend to start moving things around and searching specific areas with greater focus - does the system we are playing acknowledge that as something that can happen?"). But of course that isn't the situation. I know this is Kobayashi Maru territory, but that was the interest in the question for me.

Yep, you're treating them like disobedient puppies.

If someone other than Talakael had said "I'm trying to help my group get better at navigating exploration/dungeoneering/social situations/stealth scenes because they seem to shut down if there isn't a straightforward path. Any advice?" would you have the same take?

Edit:

No. Don't stick words in my mouth.

I suggest sacrificing whatever weird ego investment "I," in this hypothetical you proposed, have in them solving my puzzle, which they are clearly uninterested in engaging with--all of them--so that we can get on with parts of the game we do all enjoy, instead of spending three hours sitting there so I can tell strangers later how badly they behaved. Do not ask "What would you do in that situation?" if you are unwilling to accept the answers you get without heavy editing.

Fair. I did not think you meant the puzzle was the "one thing" - I thought you meant the one thing was "shutting down any time the first solution to anything doesn't work" because I was biased to my interpretation of the issue in the group. I assume neither of us believe that Talakeal was doing some sort of smug sit-and-watch so he could gloat or condescend afterwards...I know I do not believe that to be the case.

Also, looking back at what I actually said that got you sarcastically going on about how learning never happens outside a classroom: Do you seriously, honestly believe any of Talakeal's players signed up for him to teach them how they should play RPGs?

To be specific, it was the unilateral and condescending "utterly inappropriate attitude" comment that struck me as hypocritical - it appeared you assumed I signed up to be preached to rather than "talked with" and I know I didn't sign up for that. But then I mostly got over it because I doubt that was really the intent.

I believe that I am willing to learn when I'm playing a game. I think most people are so willing. Generally I don't think anyone - outside of specific, intentional "sign up to learn this game" situations - go into a game thinking that is *all* they will be doing, but I like to think people are open to learning. If I am doing something wrong, or poorly, or even (depending on the person teaching) sub-optimally, I want advice and correction. Coachability has been an important trait in my experiences.

I believe behavior modification happens constantly, and that it can help us in lots of ways and areas, and that's just another phrase for teaching (at least as I mean it...not in some Manchurian Candidate fashion).

I think at least two of the players (again, if we are to believe) have an extremely low level of coachability, so I think behavior modification would need to be pretty subtle and heavily reward driven.

- M

[Talakeal]

snip

Pretty good summary, but the issue is that both Brian and I were misunderstanding the other one, so we were both trying to be the "reasonable" person, but at the same time perceiving the other as the "bad" person.


So let me ask you a question though, rather than fixating on the part that we have all acknowledged was a misunderstanding, could you show me how the reasonable GM handles the actual problem?

The players, upon finding that their first attempt at bypassing an obstacle doesn't work (for whatever reason) declare the situation hopeless, pull out their phones, and disengage from the game, hoping that either one of the other players will solve the problem or the GM will relent and make the obstacle disappear.

What does the reasonable GM do that isn't "treating the players like disobedient puppies" or just deciding the situation is beyond salvaging and walking away?

[Mordar]

Pretty good summary, but the issue is that both Brian and I were misunderstanding the other one, so we were both trying to be the "reasonable" person, but at the same time perceiving the other as the "bad" person.


So let me ask you a question though, rather than fixating on the part that we have all acknowledged was a misunderstanding, could you show me how the reasonable GM handles the actual problem?

The players, upon finding that their first attempt at bypassing an obstacle doesn't work (for whatever reason) declare the situation hopeless, pull out their phones, and disengage from the game, hoping that either one of the other players will solve the problem or the GM will relent and make the obstacle disappear.

What does the reasonable GM do that isn't "treating the players like disobedient puppies" or just deciding the situation is beyond salvaging and walking away?

I'd start with leading questions...hopefully before phones made it out (if I played with people that would do that). "Your general search failed - is there anywhere specific you want to examine in greater detail?" Then (assuming someone answers) I'd jump on that and manipulate my design (if necessary) to link that space to the trigger. Best case someone says the statue, but as long as anybody wants to suggest, they will find a trigger. Why? Because this advances the game *and* teaches the lesson. In a gentle behavioral modification fashion. In a group that sounds like yours I am looking for a reason to say "yes" in this situation.

I don't have an NPC solve the issue though, and I don't say (unless I am confident in the people) "Why didn't you XYZ".

- M

[gbaji]

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.

Yeah. And this was where I was angling this whole line of reasoning. It's not the the players "refused to respond". It's more that their "tier1 response" wasn't a direct regurgitation of the expected information required to move things along.

I absolutely agree that a back and forth conversation between the NPCs and the PCs was called for here, and likely could (should?) have resulted in them providing the information. But that requires that both sides of the conversation be engaged and involved. It's unclear to me how interested the players were in engaging in conversation (or what method that conversation took), so it's unclear where the breakdown occurred. I do suspect that at least part of this may loop back to the same "Talakeal is far more interested in IC RP dialoguing than his players are" issue. But I can't be certain of this, since there's been little to no actual quotes (and what little we've gotten seems unlikely to have literally been the only verbatim thing the players ever said during the scene).

So yeah. Something went wrong with that scene. But to me, if something goes that wrong in a game I'm running as GM, I assume the fault is mine and work to figure out how to fix things (or at least, avoid the same problem in the future). I can't change other people. I can change myself. It's honestly that simple.

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."

Sorry. My goggles got lost in the mail I think.

I was trying to change things slightly to more align with the OP scenario though. The idea is that there's a group you're trying to get to help you, but the bad guys you want them to help with are doing "evil things" in an area (and/or to people) that they don't care about. You have run across a clue which means one thing to you, but to that other group would indicate a threat to themselves or their interests (and thus give them a reason to help you). But because you don't know this fact, you may not think to share that bit of information with the group in the first place. So... not perfect.

But to equate to what you said, this would be like the Fae at the court asking "did the werewolves tell you that they are planning to attack Muir woods?". I mean, that's the closest equivalent to directly asking about "strange symbols or markings", right?

I'm not even suggesting that level of "lead the players" here. I'm going more in the direction of having the group tell the players "we're a group who is interested in all things occult. We specialize in old books written in dead languages, ancient myths, and strange symbols and glyphs". So you don't have them ask "have you seen a strange symbol", you just let the players know that this group might be interested in any strange symbols they might have run across (and may be able to tell them what those symbols mean, right?).

I'm pretty sure I've already suggested multiple variations of dialogue that could have been used in the OP scene to do the equivalent. You don't just keep asking questions of the PCs. You can also have your NPCs tell the PCs a bit about themselves which also serves as a hint/clue as well.

The stone-speak spell enables a social encounter where there otherwise wouldn't be one, it is still a social encounter. One that Brian made unnecessarily difficult with his belligerent approach.

Which, by your own admission, was a misunderstanding of the wording of the spell. He thought the spell allowed him to command the stone to speak. So he commanded it.

I'm still confused why this created a blockage. Brian says that. You correct him and say it doesn't allow him to command the stone, but only to ask the stone for information. I'm reasonably certain that the next words out of Brians mouth would have been "Ok. Then I ask the stone for the information". Done. Again. Unless you have some specific reason for this statue to lie or oppose Brian getting that information, why not just tell him the information at that point? Why drag things out?

Again though, this is kind of missing the forest for the trees. This is just one example of a recurring problem, that when the player's first approach doesn't work, they refuse to change approaches. And, your proposed solution of "therefore ensure the first solution always works, regardless of how little logical sense it makes or how bad the dice play out" is, imo, significantly worse than the problem.

I see a very different pattern to this recurring problem than you do. I see a pattern of you not wanting the players to "easily" solve any problem or overcome any obstacle (even if they've used the correct combination of spells and/or abilities which should have made it so), doubly so if you had a previous idea of how they should over come it, so you put in additional block points and/or make a point of not allowing their idea to succeed. Then, when your players refuse to play "guess the solution" with you, you dig in your heels, everyone gets upset, and you post on this forum about how unreasonable your players are being.

That's not to say that your players *aren't* being unreasonable. But you are guilty of the same thing IMO.

But again, this whole attitude seems kind of dismissive of the social pillar.

Not at all. I simply don't assume that the only way to do the social pillar is via IC RP dialogue. I can (and have) run my players though extremely convoluted and complex social interactions and problems, all without a single IC line of dialogue spoken. There is nothing at all "wrong" with using narration to play out social interaction in a TTRPG, nor is it innately "right" to play these out via IC dialogue. This is completely about what the players at your table are comfortable doing and frankly what they want to spend time doing. I have players who are more than capable of getting into character and roleplaying out dialogue. But it's quite often just not worth the time and effort to do this, so they don't, and I don't make them.

Let the players decide when/if they want to do this. Never force or require it. TTRPGers run the gamut from LARP to wargame in their approach. Let them play how they are comfortable playing.

Do you think anyone would advise me "Just skip combat. Its not worth risking a TPK over. When the PCs tell you they attack something, just cut to them looting its corpse. It takes ten seconds. Its not hard."

Again though, this is based on the assumption that "social" == "IC dialogue". I soundly reject that assumption. As I said in my previous post, claiming that if you aren't doing IC dialogue you are "refusing to engage in the social game at all" is a false statement.

Yeah, like I said, we have a fundamentally different approach to RPGs. I am much less "task oriented" than you.

In CRPG parlance, I am there for a sandbox, not a theme park.

But you aren't running a CRPG. You are running a TTRPG. The term "sandbox" means (arguably significantly) different things in those two mediums of play.

And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. What you are actually describing in the OP is not a sandbox game. It's a pretty darn bog standard "here's a threat, and here are the various things/steps you'll need to deal with it" adventure. You set up a "task oriented" adventure for your players to contend with. I think at least part of the problem here is that you are running a standard game, but want to pretend its a sandbox. The result is a game where the players must figure out clueA leads to actionB in order to succeed, but you are insisting on not telling them this "cause it's a sandbox and they can do anything they want".

For me, getting to talk in character and explore a fictional world is an end unto itself.

I would never deem a scene a failure just because it took some extra time or the players didn't walk away with the maximum possible benefit.

Again though. The moment you set up some sort of threat that the PCs have to contend with, you can't run the game this way. You're literally running a different game than the one you are actually playing. That's going to cause massive confusion and frustration for the players. They think "we need to solve this problem the GM has set before us" and you're like "there's no specific task to accomplish here, just hang out and talk, and if you don't get the info, that's just as valid an outcome". Um... No. You literally put super evil werewolves transforming people into evil minions in their freaking tenement building. You kinda have to expect that the players are absolutely going to see this as problem to be solved, and expect that the game is about doing just that. If you run a scene along the way, you must allow for their expecations that this will somehow "lead to a solution".

You seem to have a disconnect between the type of game you think you are playing and the one you are actually running. An actual sandbox is very very different than what you are doing.

They were invited to a party and they showed up at the time and place the invitation said to arrive.

They were just randomly invited to a party? Wait? And there are no rails here? So you did more or less just say "Here's the next scene" and then run it?

Let the players drive the car.

I am talking about when things don't go according to plan. A swerve. A betrayal. A twist. A surprise.

Except, apparently, there was no plan to begin with. You just moved them into a scene, and said "Ok. talk". How did you expect that to work? Again. If this was actually a sandbox, that would be fine. But this isn't. So it isn't.

How would you go about establishing the goal of such a scene beforehand without giving away the big reveal?

What "big reveal"?

The party is trying to deal with the werewolves in their building. That's presuambly their goal in every single thing they are doing here. It's already established. The only bit that you can help facilitate is making sure the players have a discussion/conversation about what exactly they are doing there and how they're going to go about trying to get help. And there are a number of ways to do this. At my table, the players will probably just do this on their own, hashing things out, looking about for possible sources of assistance, and then coming across the "let's tell the Fae about the planned attack by the werewolves" idea at some point in all of this, and then going to the party with that specific objective in mind.

At your table? I'd probably create a "friendly NPC" (maybe some old changeling in the building who the PCs know who helps provide them with useful information, since they are children afterall). If the children come to this NPC with the new info they just got, he tells them "well, I don't know if the Fae have any specific interests in Muir woods, but if anyone might, and would be interested in helping you, it would be one of them. There's a party tomorrow night. You should go and tell them about the planned attack. They may not help you, but you never know." And then we move on. We go to the scene, the players know that "the attack on Muir woods" is important and may get them help from the Fae, so they are already primed to do just that.

Leaving it out as just one in a list of things they "could do" in an otherwise seemingly unrelated social scene, but then expecting them to figure this out just seems needlessly obtuse. Your game already has a "plot" to it. Don't pretend it does not. There's a reason why they gained the information about the attack on Muir woods right before they "just happened" to go to a party at the Seelie Court. These were not really random unconnected events, but you are presenting them to the players as though they are. Why on earth be surprised that they don't make the connection between them, when you seem to have gone to great lengths to convince them that they are, in fact, unconnected.

Dont do that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having "linear" components to an adventure. "Get the key. Find the door. Open the door with the key." Done. Follow that sequence. "Get the info about the attack. Provide that info to the Fae. Get help". Done. Follow that sequence.

It's already in your adventure. Don't shy away from that, or pretend it isn't there. Own the heck out of it.

Perhaps. But I would say the "fluff" is going to be far more memorable in the long run. For example, you remember Tasselhoff because of his personality, not because of his Open Locks percentage or backstab damage multiplier.

I disagree. Everyone at my table remembers that one time when the hobbit randomly tossed a pebble into a well, waking up the demon within, which then came out and killed half the party (and has lead to a long standing rule that we don't allow hobbits to toss stones like ever). No one remembers what the hobbit said at the time.

By far the most memorable things in any game are the decision->action->outcome sequences that went either incredibly right, or hillariously/tragically wrong. No one really remembers the exact wording of the dialogue someone used 10 years ago. Ok. Everyone once in a while, there's a memorable bit of dialogue. But honestly, it's rarely GM to player interaction, but usually PC to PC stuff (or player to player) that is remembered. I still distinctly recall playing a game of Shadowrun, where we are waiting for the corp mercs to show up, the fog rolls in making it hard to see, and we're all asking "can anyone see anything?", and my cousin, playing his physical adept sniper, up on the roof of a building (quoting Terminator 2) says "I see everything".

But honestly? That's about it. I have heard like thousands of pages of long winded RP dialogue in my time, by players earnestly RPing their hearts out, and I remember pretty much zero of it. And the longer and more frequently this kind of dialogue is used in a game, the less memorable any of it becomes. It's just not an end point for me at all. I may even enjoy it at the time, but it's generally a means towards an end though. It's "fluff". I may be fun fluff, but it's fluff nonetheless.

I suspect for somewhere around 99% of TTRPG players, this is the overwhelming opinion. It's fun. It's an added layer to the game. But outside of very specific social dialogue focused games, it's not the objective. It's a means to the objective. It should never ever become a blocking point in a game though (and the mere fact that it *can* be a blocking point in a game means you are not playing a "social dialogue focused game", so this is somewhat axiomatic).

Like, do you think it should matter at all what approach I choose in a social situation? Like, if I choose to say, try and get the king to do me a favor by striking up a close rapport with him so that I can logically address each of his concerns vs. run in, drop my trousers, and tell him that he is a stupid jerk while waving my bare ass in his face?

Notice how you were able to present both of those options without a single line of dialogue? That's how you narrate a social scene. Yes. It's less colorful. And yes, it may be more fun to play it out via full dialogue. But sometimes, the players just aren't interested in that. And... the narration method does have the virtue of being much much faster. I tell you what's going on, you tell me what you do. Done.

Creating a character is not the same as having control over the character.

Uh.... With rare exceptions, yes, it does. In a RPG game, that is.

No player characters are present, therefore no player agency is violated.

Game objects that the PC has direct and explicit control over (via the description of the spell they cast). So it does not matter where their PC actually is. This is still a matter of player agency.

By your argument, the GM can erase or eliminate the effects of all PC actions, and as long a the PC isn't physically present, it doesn't affect player agnecy. So the PCs work really hard to obtain some objective in the game, and then when they leave the GM goes "nope! bad guys still win", and that's not a violation of player agency? I suspect that you'd get a heck of a lot of disagreement on that.

And in this case, the PC casts a spell that literally says they get to control the target creature. But you are arguing that once the creature is no longer physically in the same room as the PC, the player no longer has control of the creature, and the GM gets to decide what the creature does, and that's not a violation of player agency? Yeah. Not agreeing with that at all.

You are either drastically less trusting than Bob or drastically less tactically adept than Bob is.

This is absolutely how the spell is meant to be run, and Bob has used it to entirely beneficial effect dozens of times.

But it was only beneficial to Bob when and where you (the GM) decided to allow it to be beneficial to him. The moment you decided differently you made it absolutely clear that you, and not he, was in actual control of the illusion spell he cast. That's problematic IMO. Your intepretation of the spell basically means "the GM controls your illusion, and may choose to have it do what you want, or not... at their own whim".

What you call "trusting" is Bob having no choice but to give control over to you and then just kinda hope you don't screw him over. I'd much rather not put my players in that position. I provide them with consistent "rules" that are followed in the game. and one of them is "stuff that you do is under your control". When in doubt, the players decide what anything that is connected to a spell/ability/item in their possession does. The most I ever do is adjudicate the game mechanical effect of those decisions. So I would decide how the monster reacted to Bob's illusion (and of course arbitrate what things can and cannot affect an illusion in the first place), but I would *never* tell Bob "your illusion does <some thing you don't want it to do>". Ever.

I have played many RPGs with many groups over the years, and I can't recall this ever actually being an issue.

Except for the time when Bob's illusion didn't do what he wanted it to do, leading to an argument. Right? That situation would have been avoided if you'd just "told him what was going on, and let him decide how his illusion resopnded".

I mean, sure, sometimes players (mostly Bob) argue about a GM's ruling over how a specific spell or ability will play out at the table (as was the initial case being referenced) but that is not the same thing, and I don't think anyone is actually advocating in good faith for the players to take away referee duties from the GM to avoid arguments (not that this would avoid arguments mind you, it merely shifts the burden of whom is making the final call).

This is not a matter of the GM adjudicating game mechanics. This is a matter of "who is in control of this game object?". As a GM, you already control the vast majority of objects and people in a game. Let the players control as much stuff as they can reasonably justify being in control of. What is the harm?

It isn't your character though. Batman is your character. Robin is your character's sidekick. That is the whole point.

I already said that I have never played the game, and don't know how a "sidekick" works.

If Robin has never been under the control of Batman's player, then your scenario was not in good faith. We were talking about whether a character, who is under player control when in proximity to that player's character, should cease to be under their control when not. I argued that the character is either controlled by the player, or it is not. Period. Whether it's right next to their PC or not is irrelevant (Unless I suppose there are specific game rules for this, but as I said, I'm not familiar with that game).

And in the case of a dominated creature, the spell explicitly says that the character can receive basic information from/about the dominated creature and issue commands in response. So proximity is absolutely not a factor. The GM deciding to have the dominated creature encounter some situation not previously planned for by the caster, and then not telling the player about it, but just making their own decision, is flat out wrong.

I am pretty sure that when someone sits down to play a game, the default assumption is that everyone plays by the same rules.

While I agree that reasonable accommodations and compromises can and should be made, I am by no means obligated to let someone play at my table and ignore the rules which the rest of us have all agreed to play under.

And, likewise, no player is obligated to remain at a table where they do not agree to the rules.

Sure. But if your dogmatiic application of "the rules" (and lets be honest, this is not "rules" but "GM playstyle preference"), seems to create conflicts and problems in your game pretty darn frequently. So why not tone that stuff down a bit?

Do you actually enjoy having these conflicts with your players? If so, keep doing things the way you are doing them. If not, maybe consider some of these suggestions.

Again, this is a hypothetical you invented. Nobody at my table is unwilling to talk in character. Nor am I unwilling to allow a player to narrate their dialogue for me rather than act it out.

Except when Brian cast the stonespeak spell, and you required him to RP the dialogue, and when he refused, you made him make a skill roll. You mean, except for that time, right?

It's not a "hypothetical" when it's literally a case you posted from your own game.

What my players said is that social situations should be resolved by dice because it is unfair to people who play characters who are more charismatic than they are (and vice versa). And I agree.

I'm going to do a bit of speculation here (yeah, I know), and perhaps clue you in to something about human/player nature: When players tell you that they are willing to make a skill roll rather than RP dialogue? This is them telling you that they don't want to RP dialogue. They are literally willing to risk failing at something on a die roll rather than guarantee success if they just play the dialogue game you are asking them to play.

That's a big giant cluexfour that your players don't enjoy this and don't want to do it. So stop trying to force them to do it!

I can absolutely guarantee you that your players would much rather just narrate out their action and decision instead, but you are not allowing them to do that (not without having to make a skill roll anyway). So they fall back to "can I just roll a die instead?".

What I said is that the players need to give me the gist of what they said to the NPC and how they said it so that I can determine the NPC's reaction as well as set the difficulties for any dice rolls that might be involved.

And if they had engaged in active dialogue, would you have required them to make the die roll? Or would you have "judged" their RPing, and if it met your standards, you'd have allowed it to stand without a die roll required?

This is what I mean by "making them jump through hoops". You want them to play a specific way. They don't want to play that way. You reward them if they do, but punish them if they don't. And no. This is not about "rules". This is about your own personal preferences. Again, I'm speculating here, but based on numerous posts by you, I get the strong impression that your players really really don't want to do this, and you are doing everything you can to force them to anyway.

The players get some say in what game they are playing too. As the GM, you have control over a lot of things in a game, but you need to realize that you are not the only person at the table either.

Second, I can't think of a way to check to see if the players forgot something without also telling them "Hey, do this if you want to succeed!" which imo takes away player agency and removes any aspect of challenge or decision making.

Yes. I get that, perhaps at the time, you didn't think of a way to do this, but now, having been told various ways you could have handled this differently, which would have avoided the problem, I would hope you would respond with "that's great advice. I'll take that to heart the next time I run a similar scenario, and I've given my players a key clue, but they don't seem to be using it right when it would be of great use to them".


If there's a theme to my resposes here, it's that things are rarely "all or nothing". Most things in a game are a range of choices "in between". And in this case, there is a range of actions you can take as a GM between "keep quiet and just let the players keep failing" and "tell the players what they need to do". I've provided several examples of ways to do this which fall well in between those. I'm not going to repeat them, but you are free to read back through my previous responses. I even provided dialogue in several of them!

1: Give me the gist of the instructions your character is providing. Remember, in character you have about six seconds to come up with them, although I am not going to be a stickler about it. Then, trust me to run the NPC in good faith in accordance with those instructions. Do not expect semantic tricks or loopholes to work in either direction. Be willing to answer questions to clarify your intent if I am confused.

The bolded bit is the problem here. Also, it's hard to take your comment about "semantic tricks or loopholes" seriously when that's essentially what you used to argue Bob's illusion would cower when faced with a monster. I get that you don't see it that way, but I do, and I'm pretty darn sure Bob did as well.

[Talakeal]

I'm going to do a bit of speculation here (yeah, I know), and perhaps clue you in to something about human/player nature: When players tell you that they are willing to make a skill roll rather than RP dialogue? This is them telling you that they don't want to RP dialogue. They are literally willing to risk failing at something on a die roll rather than guarantee success if they just play the dialogue game you are asking them to play.

That's a big giant cluexfour that your players don't enjoy this and don't want to do it. So stop trying to force them to do it!

I can absolutely guarantee you that your players would much rather just narrate out their action and decision instead, but you are not allowing them to do that (not without having to make a skill roll anyway). So they fall back to "can I just roll a die instead?".

Ok. So... you are actually being far meaner and more critical to my players than I have ever been right now, as you are accusing them of being a bunch of machievellian liars.

I have played in games that Brian has *run* where we would talk all night in character without a single dice being rolled.

He has absolutely no problem talking in character for hours.

What he does have, or at least claims to have, is anxiety about being judged.

He does not like the pressure of having to succeed or fail based on the merits of his own argument, and would much rather leave the responsibility up to the dice.


Hell, Dave, has a much lower tolerance for in character dialogue than either Bob or Brian, as he is very much a "hack and slash" style gamer. But still, Brian and Bob often times insist that I make Dave roll a charisma test rather than letting him sweet talk me into auto-passing OOC.

And if they had engaged in active dialogue, would you have required them to make the die roll? Or would you have "judged" their RPing, and if it met your standards, you'd have allowed it to stand without a die roll required?

I absolutely do not judge the quality of a player's RPing when factory success or failure.

What I do, is I base the difficulty based on the situation and their approach. Sometimes, a plan will be so good the difficulty is so low it is effectively impossible to fail, and sometimes the plan is such a poor fit for the situation that the difficulty is too high to realistically succeed barring exploding 20s.

Again though, this has nothing to do with dialogue; it applies the same for any aspect of the game. See my Candelabra example in my previous post.

The bolded bit is the problem here. Also, it's hard to take your comment about "semantic tricks or loopholes" seriously when that's essentially what you used to argue Bob's illusion would cower when faced with a monster. I get that you don't see it that way, but I do, and I'm pretty darn sure Bob did as well.

Sometimes a GM does have to make rulings based on "semantics".

For example:

In this weeks session, Bob had a power that provided +5 dice in a fistfight. This means I have to decide what the author meant by "fistfight". Is a sword a fist? A sap? A bite? A claw? A knuckle duster? A kick? A wrestling hold?

Hell, to go further into this example; the power actually says the "enchanted mortal gains +5 damage in a fisfight". An enchanted mortal is a specific group of beings in Changeling who have access to this power innately, but Bob has the power to bestow this power on anyone. Will it still function for people who aren't enchanted mortals? Heck, does it turn whomever he casts it on into an enchanted mortal? What if they were already an immortal, do they suddenly lose their immortal status when they become an "enchanted mortal"?


The Eldar Avatar is immune to heat and fire based weapons. Does this includes lasers? How about explosive shells?

A paladin is immune to disease. Does this include fungal spores? Prions? Cancer? Genetic Disorders? Radiation Sickness?

An Anti-Magic field blocks all magical effects. Is a dragon's fire magical? How about its flight? How about its ability to avoid collapsing under its own weight?

If I polymorph a six foot tall man into a woman, is she a six foot tall woman or a 5'7'' woman?

Does a speak with plants spell allow me to speak with mushrooms even if they are technically fungi and not plants?

Or, in this case, a Spectre that is made as a copy of a real person and acts like that person would. Does this mean it attacks like the real person does, or does it act like the person would act if they knew it was a hologram and had no compunctions against letting other people know that is was a hologram?


These are all grey areas in the rules that require a referee to decide. This role has traditionally belonged to the GM. But it doesn't really matter if it shifts to the player, either way the person who disagrees with the rule is going to feel like they are being shafted.


Trying to make comparisons to the GM deliberately twisting the player's instructions or having NPCs betray them for no reason are not related to the topic, they are merely red herrings thrown out to make a GM who doesn't always rule in the player's favor to look like more of a bad guy.

Except when Brian cast the stone-speak spell, and you required him to RP the dialogue, and when he refused, you made him make a skill roll. You mean, except for that time, right?

It's not a "hypothetical" when it's literally a case you posted from your own game.

What I thought Brian was saying:

I can't think of a convincing argument right now; can we just leave it up to chance with a charisma check?

What Brian was actually saying:

I thought this spell allowed me to command the statue. I don't understand why it isn't working, and all of this stuff you are saying about needing to make a convincing argument is really confusing me and making me frustrated!

What Nobody was saying:

"I refuse to talk in character." or "Then I will punish you with a chance of failure that didn't exist if your RP was up to my standards!"

Which, by your own admission, was a misunderstanding of the wording of the spell. He thought the spell allowed him to command the stone to speak. So he commanded it.

I'm still confused why this created a blockage. Brian says that. You correct him and say it doesn't allow him to command the stone, but only to ask the stone for information. I'm reasonably certain that the next words out of Brians mouth would have been "Ok. Then I ask the stone for the information". Done. Again. Unless you have some specific reason for this statue to lie or oppose Brian getting that information, why not just tell him the information at that point? Why drag things out?

Because we didn't clear up the misunderstanding until after the game was already over.

I thought he was saying he couldn't come up with a convincing argument for why the statue should talk to him, and so he was asking me to leave it up to a dice roll.

He thought something was interfering with his spell for some reason.

But you aren't running a CRPG. You are running a TTRPG. The term "sandbox" means (arguably significantly) different things in those two mediums of play.

And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. What you are actually describing in the OP is not a sandbox game. It's a pretty darn bog standard "here's a threat, and here are the various things/steps you'll need to deal with it" adventure. You set up a "task oriented" adventure for your players to contend with. I think at least part of the problem here is that you are running a standard game, but want to pretend its a sandbox. The result is a game where the players must figure out clueA leads to actionB in order to succeed, but you are insisting on not telling them this "cause it's a sandbox and they can do anything they want".

This is wrong. All of it. It is just flat out wrong.

The adventure was absolutely a sandbox.

When the game started, I had a list of NPCs, locations, and a timetable of events. That is all.

There were no goals and no solutions whatsoever, let alone specific steps required to achieve them.

At no point did I ever have anything more than the loosest plot structure for the next few scenes, and even that went out the window more often than not.

There was, however, still logic in the way the world operates.

When the players came up with a goal, I still have a functioning brain, and I can still foresee ways in which they can pull it off, and sometimes when they were struggling, I gave them IC hints.

They were just randomly invited to a party? Wait? And there are no rails here? So you did more or less just say "Here's the next scene" and then run it?

Let the players drive the car.

On May 10th, all of the Changelins in San Francisco throw a big party called "Starlit Night". It is part of the canon setting. As the players were making friendly with some Changelings on May 1st, they were tossed an invitation. They could have refused to come, but I don't know why they would.

But, on a broader level, yeah, Generally the GM needs to set the scene for a game to occur.

Even pure sandboxes have edges.

When you run a classic sandbox module like Isle of Dread, there is kind of the expectation that the players will, you know, be on the Isle of Dread, not just sail off and run the Tomb of Horrors on a whim.

And in this case, the PC casts a spell that literally says they get to control the target creature. But you are arguing that once the creature is no longer physically in the same room as the PC, the player no longer has control of the creature, and the GM gets to decide what the creature does, and that's not a violation of player agency? Yeah. Not agreeing with that at all.

I see you are just ignoring my Mario Brothers analogy?

The player has some in character means of exerting control over their minions; exactly how it works varies from spell to spell. If the caster is unable to exert that control, then no control is exercised.

Its really pretty basic.

Like, Summon Monster in D&D says the creature must obey my verbal commands. If I cannot or will not give verbal commands, there is nothing to obey. If I am in a different room, the monster can't hear me, and even if it could, if I don't know what is going on in there, how can I give intelligible commands?

But it was only beneficial to Bob when and where you (the GM) decided to allow it to be beneficial to him. The moment you decided differently you made it absolutely clear that you, and not he, was in actual control of the illusion spell he cast. That's problematic IMO. Your intepretation of the spell basically means "the GM controls your illusion, and may choose to have it do what you want, or not... at their own whim".

What you call "trusting" is Bob having no choice but to give control over to you and then just kinda hope you don't screw him over. I'd much rather not put my players in that position. I provide them with consistent "rules" that are followed in the game. and one of them is "stuff that you do is under your control". When in doubt, the players decide what anything that is connected to a spell/ability/item in their possession does. The most I ever do is adjudicate the game mechanical effect of those decisions. So I would decide how the monster reacted to Bob's illusion (and of course arbitrate what things can and cannot affect an illusion in the first place), but I would *never* tell Bob "your illusion does <some thing you don't want it to do>". Ever.

You are putting it in the least charitable terms possible, but yes, that is how RPGs work. GMs control NPCs, and GMs arbitrate gray areas in the rules.

Sometimes, a GM acting in good faith, will rule against a player.

What you are essentially doing is saying that just because it is possible to act in bad faith, bad faith should be assumed and therefore the players should have final say (of course, then when the player starts acting in bad faith, what then?).

This is not a matter of the GM adjudicating game mechanics. This is a matter of "who is in control of this game object?". As a GM, you already control the vast majority of objects and people in a game. Let the players control as much stuff as they can reasonably justify being in control of. What is the harm?

The harm is that:

1: It gives players with minions inordinate spotlight time.
2: It wrecks game balance by making minionmancy spells and abilities even more powerful and versatile than they already are.
3: It makes it harder to RP by giving the players tons of meta knowledge that their character doesn't have. (This applies to both the PC and their minions).
4: It drags the game down by having to play out a separate scene for each minion when they are split from the main party.

I have already stated this many times.

I argued that the character is either controlled by the player, or it is not. Period. Whether it's right next to their PC or not is irrelevant .

Exactly. All the other stuff about the specific system is irrelevant, this is what I was getting at.

I gave you an example of a situation where controlling a minion when the PC wasn't present made the game objectively worse for everyone involved.

That was the point.

What "big reveal"?

I am not talking about any specific scenario, I am asking in general for the future.

How do you have surprise reveals if everyone decides OOC what a scene is going to be about and how they are going to resolve it before the scene begins?

Uh.... With rare exceptions, yes, it does. In a RPG game, that is.

Repeatedly stating a false premise does not magically make it correct.

I have provided evidence for why this is not the case, I would appreciate the same in turn.

[Devils_Advocate]

Talakael has a few new players, so maybe it's not entirely crazy of him to hope to help them overcome their learned helplessness? It's not like he's just been trying the same approach to the same problem with the same people for years. ... At least, not in this specific case.

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.

Thinking back to this... I think that I would have had the changelings ask clarifying questions that necessarily have answers. "What bad things are they doing?" If they respond "We don't know", follow up with "Then what makes you think that they're doing anything bad?" At that point the PCs have to either cough up something or admit, if only through inaction, that they're hiding stuff. Then the fey can say "If you're not willing to tell us anything, then we can't help you." At this point, it's very clear to everyone involved (players and characters!) that the PCs have decided to be evasive, and the conversation is at least going somewhere.

And doesn't it make more sense for NPCs to dig into the things that the PCs are clearly being secretive about, rather than what the GM knows out-of-character is important?

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.

Hmm...

Call me crazy, but I'm beginning to think that this Bob individual may be a bit of a munchkin. :P

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.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of people assume that the issues that you ask for help with are representative of your games as a whole. Or, that they're more representative than they really are. They'd probably get a different impression from reading a campaign log. Have you ever posted one that you could direct us to?

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.

"Surprising" is subjective; it's relative to the observer. An account of PCs attacking friendly NPCs is unsurprising to me as it is well established that this is common almost to the point of being almost expected, i.e. murderhoboes gonna murderhobo. But for the PCs to then break off their attack? Ho ho, my expectations have been subverted! What a twist! :P And, yes, that does indicate that your group doesn't conform very well to the murderhobo archetype. That's the surprise twist of the story! :)

You, already familiar with your group, unsurprisingly (heh) react differently from someone ignorant on the subject.

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!

I was addressing Quertus's Superman scenario and similar. (Perhaps you haven't noticed this thread's tendency to spin off various tangents. It's a subtle thing.) Mind you, Superman probably knows that aliens exist in his own continuity. But then, conspiracies exist in the real world. Doesn't mean that it's considered reasonable to uncritically accept ravings about 'em, y'know? The existence of werewolves doesn't rule out the vast majority of werewolf sightings being false negatives!

But it's a moot point with regard to the original topic, provided that none of the changelings expressed skepticism about the children's statements.

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.

But can consent be withdrawn for any reason as well? If so, then it's perfectly valid to refuse to participate in a game without dialogue, or even insufficient dialogue by whatever your personal standards may be.

It's probably best not to construe that as "forcing" anyone to do anything.

Talakael talks a lot about "breaking character" but as I GM I am narrating stuff out of character all the time.

Seems straightforward enough to me: Not being a character doesn't mean that you can't break the fourth wall. A third-person omniscient narrator doesn't start talking about his wife outside of a comedy; and 'tis a humorous subversion of expectations, in that case.

Shall we resolve to term this "breaking narrator"? It's only logical.

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.

To the surprise of no one well-versed in such matters, the quote in my signature continues to be relevant. (On the other hand, it can be hard not to have a battle map convey more details than the player characters have access to, so there are information-based practical arguments for "theater of mind" as well.)

The default is that the player controls all characters that are under his control.

I, uh, think that you may have confused "default" with "tautology".

Anyway, it seems that I chose my words less than ideally. Replace "control" with "roleplay" or "play".

Various non-player characters may be subject to various forms and levels of player influence via the player characters. E.g. if a PC has a loyal follower who obeys her commands, her player can thereby reliably elicit desired behaviors from said follower by choosing which commands the PC gives. But of course that's not the same thing as roleplaying the follower; if there were no distinction between the two, we wouldn't be having this discussion! To imply that commanding a character in-character is roleplaying the commanded character, because the word "control" can be used to describe both, is one of those, what are they called, equivocations.

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.

I must admit that I feel somewhat flabbergasted to see you claim the above after cautioning against "all or nothing" false dilemmas.

If a spell description said that the caster dictates a being's general personality and motivation, I would certainly not expect that the caster gets to fully specify the being's personality and motivation in arbitrarily high detail. I would never even think to argue as much; I am simply nowhere near that shameless. The gulf between the text and that "interpretation" is simply too great. If, theoretically, my GM were enough of a pushover not to immediately shoot that down, I wouldn't abuse such agreeableness to such a degree. Even if the alternative were the entire party's brutal death, that feels like going too far.

Your standards here seem bizarrely high. Like, do you avoid long-term relationships with other people in real life, because given enough time, another human being will do something that's not precisely what you would have preferred?

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.

But the GM didn't expect the players to think that that specific info was relevant, he just didn't see why they would withhold it!

No. My players almost never talk to each other, and almost never come up with plans before hand. This causes a ton of issues for everyone involved, and I have tried everything in my power to get them to just talk to one another and brainstorm a bit to come up with a cohesive plan.

If distrust is a factor, maybe you could suggest that they can discuss things privately via text message. Which some of them might be doing already, I suppose. But if not, that could provide an avenue of participation that doesn't require turning away from their precious phones.

I can't think of a way to check to see if the players forgot something without also telling them "Hey, do this if you want to succeed!" which imo takes away player agency and removes any aspect of challenge or decision making.

If you remind them every time that it seems like they forgot something, whether it's important to the situation at hand or not, then it ceases to be a giveaway and hopefully increases the chances that they'll remember the thing on their own by the time that it does become relevant.

Pretty good summary, but the issue is that both Brian and I were misunderstanding the other one, so we were both trying to be the "reasonable" person, but at the same time perceiving the other as the "bad" person.

Trying but failing, it would seem. Coming to an agreement generally requires, if not assuming good faith, at least willingness to acknowledge the possibility of good faith. How's anything supposed to work out well without putting that in? That's not reasonable! ;)

But it was only beneficial to Bob when and where you (the GM) decided to allow it to be beneficial to him. The moment you decided differently you made it absolutely clear that you, and not he, was in actual control of the illusion spell he cast.

That's the nature of the spell. I'm pretty sure that it's not particularly unusual for a caster not to be able to adjust a spell effect once it has been produced. Like, you fill a specific volume with darkness or silence and then you can't move it afterwards.

Your intepretation of the spell basically means "the GM controls your illusion, and may choose to have it do what you want, or not... at their own whim".

"Whim" doesn't enter into it unless a ruling is capricious.

Except when Brian cast the stonespeak spell, and you required him to RP the dialogue, and when he refused, you made him make a skill roll.

You can spin calling for a skill roll as some sort of punishment, but that's very biased at best. I assume that Talakeal calls for rolls for roleplayed dialogue as well. And sometimes skips to success or failure based on what is said. Pull the candelabra, open the secret door. Stay away from the candelabra, don't open the secret door. Getting into the details of what happens has implications for the consequences that aren't there when everything is abstracted away.

Now, does that bring in a degree of player skill? Sure. But what's the alternative? To ignore all of the details, no matter how little sense that makes? Or to say "If saying the right thing could result in success, then to be fair you have to let everyone succeed automatically, because otherwise you're punishing a lack of player skill"?

That last question isn't rhetorical; that may or may not be your position from what I know.

[Talakeal]

Thanks Devil, it is nice to see that at least someone gets what I am trying to say!

That's the nature of the spell. I'm pretty sure that it's not particularly unusual for a caster not to be able to adjust a spell effect once it has been produced. Like, you fill a specific volume with darkness or silence and then you can't move it afterwards.

That is how I see the situation as well. I have said as such many times in this thread and the last. It does not seem to sway anyone.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of people assume that the issues that you ask for help with are representative of your games as a whole. Or, that they're more representative than they really are. They'd probably get a different impression from reading a campaign log. Have you ever posted one that you could direct us to?

I have posted three, one finished, two incomplete. I have a fourth one in .pdf that I haven't uploaded to the forum.

The problem is, they don't generate nearly as much discussion as the drama threads, and I kind of stopped uploading them after I got an infraction for continuing to update them every two weeks despite not having any new posts between updates.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9s72d...=e2qheotv&dl=0

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...a-horror-story!)

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...ror-story-free!)

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...n-Campaign-Log

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...ates-of-Foreth