Players characters evading direct questions

[glass]

Longer response to the thread later (if I can be bothered) but in the meantime I wanted to quickly pick up on these two points:

I was addressing Quertus's Superman scenario and similar.

I get that, but I thought the superman-&-aliens analogy was supposed to be, well, an analogy. For the fae-&-werewolves.

But can consent be withdrawn for any reason as well?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.

Yes, of course it can. And given that I am on record multiple times as saying that not playing with/running for this group is exactly what I think Talakael should do, that's not really much of a rebuttal.

[Morgaln]

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?

Just pointing out, in this particular case, this approach would probably not have worked. Turning humans into fomori already is a bad thing to do (at least if you care even a little bit about regular humans), and the players had told the Sidhe about that. Considering the ultimate goal of the Wyrm is to destroy existence, the information that a group of the Wyrm's minions is amassing an army nearby should be alarming to anyone, regardless of whether they know the BSD's plan or not. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that information alone would be enough to get the Sidhe to act. Personally, I think the smart thing for the Sidhe to do in the situation would have been to alert the werewolves in Muir Wood and let them handle the situation, although they might have been worried about collateral damage; the Garou are not subtle. Knowig that the BSD's are planning to attack Muir Wood might also have led to the Sidhe letting that attack happen and then mop up the survivors afterwards, for all the players knew, so telling them about the attack on Muir Wood could have been detrimental.

I don't think the players thought about all of this, they were just checked out, but there are reasonable in-game reasons to act like they did.

[GloatingSwine]

Just pointing out, in this particular case, this approach would probably not have worked. Turning humans into fomori already is a bad thing to do (at least if you care even a little bit about regular humans), and the players had told the Sidhe about that. Considering the ultimate goal of the Wyrm is to destroy existence, the information that a group of the Wyrm's minions is amassing an army nearby should be alarming to anyone, regardless of whether they know the BSD's plan or not. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that information alone would be enough to get the Sidhe to act. Personally, I think the smart thing for the Sidhe to do in the situation would have been to alert the werewolves in Muir Wood and let them handle the situation, although they might have been worried about collateral damage; the Garou are not subtle. Knowig that the BSD's are planning to attack Muir Wood might also have led to the Sidhe letting that attack happen and then mop up the survivors afterwards, for all the players knew, so telling them about the attack on Muir Wood could have been detrimental.

I don't think the players thought about all of this, they were just checked out, but there are reasonable in-game reasons to act like they did.

Changelings' relationship with Banes (the spirits that possess humans to make Fomori) is a bit weird. Destroying everything would be bad, of course, but Banes possessing humans makes the world a little more magical and less Banal, which makes it easier for the Fae to live in. (The challenge for Fae is always about balancing Banality and Glamour, too much Banality and the fae soul fades and only the mortal is left, too much Glamour and you submit to bedlam, becoming unable to discern the difference between the physical and chimerical worlds and eventually fading entirely into the Dreaming).

[Darth Credence]

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?

Heck, I'd have a different take if Talakeal said that. But you are rewriting what they have said quite a bit to get something reasonable.

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 have said that in my last post, and dozens of replies from others have clearly explained it. Reread everything, and take the advice instead of looking for ways to discount it or hoping someone says something that vaguely agrees with you that you can take as vindication.

[Talakeal]

I have said that in my last post, and dozens of replies from others have clearly explained it. Reread everything, and take the advice instead of looking for ways to discount it or hoping someone says something that vaguely agrees with you that you can take as vindication.

So you want me to act on advice that I don't even *vaguely* agree with?

And I am the one treating people like disobedient puppies?

[Jason]

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

Given the specific situation we were talking about - that the players were stuck at the door to the real adventure - I would have let the spell in the second attempt succeed without having to make another roll. The real adventure is behind the secret door, so it's pointless to make the players jump through hoops before they have even started the adventure. They spent a spell slot to find the secret door? Great, let's get moving.

A more general approach when the players are stuck and starting to disengage:

First of all discuss the situation out of character with them. Make sure they don't misunderstand the situation or the rules involved.

Having cleared up any potential misunderstandings;

Have any NPCs onsite make a suggestion or two, or try something that also fails but the more skilled PCs are likely to succeed with.


Or call for perception rolls and introduce new information that the PCs didn't previously have as a hint, prompting additional rolls or expenditure of resources to solve the problem.

Or, if they really are completely disengaged, I might say "okay, let's take ten. I'll go make a snack run/bathroom break/check in with my wife/whatever and you guys give me an idea when I get back." If I get back and they still have nothing, do one of the above.

If none of that works, go ahead and hand them the answer to the current dilemma, but in a way that makes it cost them something. Like having a bunch of wandering monsters show up and give them a good fight (forcing them to expend resources and hp), and then in the battle the secret door gets jarred open by mistake. They've now paid the toll for not having come up with a good solution themselves, and we can move on.

The bottom line is that the game must go on, and it's the GM's job to make the game go on.

If I have to hand the group hints to get them past the first room then so be it. I can stop providing hints and let them suffer some more negative consequences for their unwise choices later - when we have a little momentum and won't waste our whole night when the party gets stuck.

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.

As I've said earlier, spending a spell slot is a resource expenditure. In fact, it's a very common resource expenditure in order to solve problems in fantasy RPGs. You're not going to be able to teach players that "magic can't solve my problems," when magic does actually solve many of their problems.

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

I agree with you there, but there is a fine line between "rewarding bad behavior" and "refusing to assist someone who genuinely needs help to proceed."

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.

And what was their response? Ignoring you? Why didn't they take any of your suggestions?

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

Well, I view a wasted 3 hours of game time as a big problem, but maybe you can fit more game time into your schedule than I can.

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.

The obvious antidote seems to be more communication. Stop the session and discuss until you know why they are doing it.

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.

I believe you said you thought this was the right spell to use. And the lesson "magic can solve your problems" is one that any fantasy RPG with magic in it teaches all of the time.

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.

My approach would be a bit game and situation dependent.

In a D&D game my players generally avoid splitting the group up. If a group of henchmen is assigned to do something on their own then it will usually be something fairly simple, like guarding the camp. If I had some minor plot point about the camp being attacked while the PCs are elsewhere it could play out in one of two ways: 1) If there wasn't much the henchmen could do about the attack - overwhelming force or complete surprise - I wouldn't bother playing it out. In that case the PCs would just see the aftermath, possibly when the survivors reach them; or 2) If its likely the henchmen could significantly effect events, then yes I would have the players play it out as the henchmen, even though it's not something their characters would know about.
Generally, though, if important plot-related stuff is going to happen it's going to happen to the PCs, not their henchmen.

[Darth Credence]

So you want me to act on advice that I don't even *vaguely* agree with?

And I am the one treating people like disobedient puppies?

You start threads asking for advice. You specifically ask me for advice. I provide it, as well as direct you to the copious amounts of advice already given to you. And it just isn't good enough, apparently.

You know how people are going to respond when you post one of these threads. You know perfectly well at this point that the vast majority of people here will tell you what you have done to cause your problems, and point out similar solutions to it. But somehow, you always have a response to why they are all wrong. Somehow, it's always everyone else who are misunderstanding the situation, not realizing that contrary to every story you tell, you are really a wonderful caring DM who works with their players. I have no idea why you continue to make these posts.

[glass]

Trying to cut down on the massive quote walls, so here's a few thoughts and responses to the thread in general:

Re fistfights & silver swords
I would agree that (absent any further clarification in the text) a GM will need to make a ruling on what exactly constitutes a "fist fight" - especially if, as appears to be a the case, the campaign mixes elements of three games with two different underlying systems. And I suspect I would also rule that hitting people with a sword was not being "in a fist fight" even if the opposition was using fists. Although I am not sure I how I would rule if you were fighting with your fists but someone else was trying to hit you with a sword. ("You" in this context meaning a hypothetical player getting the bonus). Logically, the latter is just as much (or as little) a fist fight as the former, but denying the ability in the latter case would feel very unfair to me.

Anyway, hopefully we can all agree that "in a fistfight" is a horrible way to write a rule!


Re players controlling other characters
As a general principle, if a player (as opposed to the PC) has control of a character other than their own I reserve the right to veto their declared actions, but I will exercise that right extremely sparingly - to the point that I don't recall ever using it except one or twice "soft vetoing" what I hope were obvious jokes by treating them as such ("Yeah, good one, Norman's* squishy and notoriously cautious warlock is going to charge into melee with the dragon...okay, what's he actually going to do?")


Re getting another PC for a spell slot/mana point/whatever
This is obviously an issue for both spotlight and power balance. But "has a second PC most of the time except when it randomly does the opposite of what they want" isn't that much better for the latter and is arguably worse for the former.

ISTM that the solution not to word spells in a way that they create extra PCs at all, rather than having them do so until they don't.


Re "general personality"
I disagree that the "general" qualifier is consequential by itself - where it appears, I would expect it to be followed by specific carveouts or exceptions to the general condition. Absent that, there isn't any meaningful difference between "the caster determines the spectre's personality" and "the caster determines the spectre's general personality".


Re social encounters & IC dialogue
I think there are two matters here that may be being conflated: Whether its okay to sometimes say "great, you spent resource X to get past obstacle Y, on to the next thing" without playing the thing out in any detail, and whether social encounters that are played out in detail can be comprised of something other than in-character dialogue. My answer is "yes" to both, but they are separate questions (and ISTM that the talking-statue example trips both of them).


Re teaching and learning during sessions
While obviously you do learn by doing, learning during a session and teaching during a session are very different things, and one should be extremely careful of trying to do the latter. For example, all Talakael taught his players in the false tomb example is that people hanging around for three hours getting increasingly frustrated is acceptable gameplay, which is very much not the lesson he hoped to impart.


(* Not his real name but a real example, except it might not have actually been a dragon.)

[Talakeal]

You know how people are going to respond when you post one of these threads. You know perfectly well at this point that the vast majority of people here will tell you what you have done to cause your problems, and point out similar solutions to it. But somehow, you always have a response to why they are all wrong. Somehow, it's always everyone else who are misunderstanding the situation, not realizing that contrary to every story you tell, you are really a wonderful caring DM who works with their players. I have no idea why you continue to make these posts.

Ok, here is how I see it.

I have a recurring problem. So I post a thread about it.

People than hyper fixate on that specific instance of it, and what I did to cause it, and how I could have avoided it with the benefit of hindsight, and tell me that if I can make a broad sweeping change to the way I run games, that specific instance won't come up again. The thing is, that one specific instance is unlikely to ever come up again anyway, yet the general issue will still remain despite it because the one case it occurred in was just a specific example.

For example, the issue in the tomb was caused by a miscommunication between Brian and I. We were both not actively listening, this was a mistake. And in hindsight, had I known the party would be stuck, I could have just hand waived the charisma check.

But sure, let's say I made the worst call of all time by requiring a charisma check, and will never ever do it again. That is not going to solve the problem in any way, because that exact situation wouldn't have come up again. But the next time, it might be an open lock check, or a stealth check, or an aim check, or a strength check, but whatever it is, the party will fail their first attempt, withdraw from the game, and do nothing.

And then, I am in the same boat, where my choice is either to let the game get drawn out and beg the players to try something else, or I reward them for withdrawing from the game by ret-conning the situation out of existence.

Re getting another PC for a spell slot/mana point/whatever
This is obviously an issue for both spotlight and power balance. But "has a second PC most of the time except when it randomly does the opposite of what they want" isn't that much better for the latter and is arguably worse for the former.

ISTM that the solution not to word spells in a way that they create extra PCs at all, rather than having them do so until they don't.

I agree, you shouldn't get an extra PC.

IMO, such spells don't allow you an extra PC, instead they change the behavior of an NPC.

Likewise, its not that they "randomly do the opposite of what you want" its that the situation changes so that the NPC following your instructions is no longer as beneficial as it was when the instruction was given.

Like, in the case that prompted the original topic, Bob ordered an illusion to pretend to be him. This was super helpful, but then, when the situation changed and the illusion was attacked by a hydra from behind, it cowered, just like the real Bob does when he comes under attack, because it was still following the orders to pretend to be him, even though it would have been more beneficial for it not to have done that because, as an illusion, the hydra can't actually hurt it.

If none of that works, go ahead and hand them the answer to the current dilemma, but in a way that makes it cost them something. Like having a bunch of wandering monsters show up and give them a good fight (forcing them to expend resources and hp), and then in the battle the secret door gets jarred open by mistake. They've now paid the toll for not having come up with a good solution themselves, and we can move on.

That's probably the best advice I have heard yet!

It doesn't apply to every situation, but yeah, when I can make it work...

Matt Colville has a very similar approach called "Orcs Attack!" where if nothing happens for more than then minutes, well, orcs attack.

Thank you!

As I've said earlier, spending a spell slot is a resource expenditure. In fact, it's a very common resource expenditure in order to solve problems in fantasy RPGs. You're not going to be able to teach players that "magic can't solve my problems," when magic does actually solve many of their problems.

The right spell used in the right way can solve every problem.

A spell used to allow you to speak to someone whom you are unwilling and / or unable to speak to convincingly... not so much.

But yeah, the thing that baffles me is they have so many great spells for this situation. Like, she is a master earth bender, how is a stone room containing her? It just blows my mind...

And what was their response? Ignoring you? Why didn't they take any of your suggestions?

Generally by acting petulant and persecuted. Like "I already told you I can't think of anything! Why are you rubbing it in!"

Well, I view a wasted 3 hours of game time as a big problem, but maybe you can fit more game time into your schedule than I can.

I think we are getting our conversations crossed; the situation last session where the players couldn't convince the Sidhe and had to go with a different ally wasn't a big deal. The stuck in the tomb for three hours was absolutely a big deal.

In a D&D game my players generally avoid splitting the group up. If a group of henchmen is assigned to do something on their own then it will usually be something fairly simple, like guarding the camp. If I had some minor plot point about the camp being attacked while the PCs are elsewhere it could play out in one of two ways: 1) If there wasn't much the henchmen could do about the attack - overwhelming force or complete surprise - I wouldn't bother playing it out. In that case the PCs would just see the aftermath, possibly when the survivors reach them; or 2) If its likely the henchmen could significantly effect events, then yes I would have the players play it out as the henchmen, even though it's not something their characters would know about.
Generally, though, if important plot-related stuff is going to happen it's going to happen to the PCs, not their henchmen.

I agree.

But what if you are sending someone to be a messenger, or a scout, or a trader, or a diplomat? Things that require a lot of time and travel.

Likewise, what if one of your henchmen gets captured and interrogated?

[Telok]

You start threads asking for advice. You specifically ask me for advice. I provide it, as well as direct you to the copious amounts of advice already given to you. And it just isn't good enough, apparently.

Yeah, I stopped asking for advice here a long time ago. Most everything was some variation on "dump the players", "talk to the players', "you're a bad person playing D&D wrong", and "you're a bad person doing hostile power trip GMing". Only one of those is not horrible toxic 'advice' or totally uselessly inaccurate, and that one already happens.

[Talakeal]

Yeah, I stopped asking for advice here a long time ago. Most everything was some variation on "dump the players", "talk to the players', "you're a bad person playing D&D wrong", and "you're a bad person doing hostile power trip GMing". Only one of those is not horrible toxic 'advice' or totally uselessly inaccurate, and that one already happens.

:)

There are some gems amidst all the pointless bickering.

I think I can really use Jason's advice about wandering monsters, and Gbaji's insight about players being "task focused" are really going to help me going forward imo.

[Jason]

I have a recurring problem. So I post a thread about it.

People than hyper fixate on that specific instance of it, and what I did to cause it, and how I could have avoided it with the benefit of hindsight, and tell me that if I can make a broad sweeping change to the way I run games, that specific instance won't come up again. The thing is, that one specific instance is unlikely to ever come up again anyway, yet the general issue will still remain despite it because the one case it occurred in was just a specific example.

If it's a recurring problem then it's likely the general issue will remain until you are in fact willing to make a "broad sweeping change to the way you run games."

Your players may have to make some kind of change too, but they're not the ones on this thread asking for advice.

That's probably the best advice I have heard yet!

It doesn't apply to every situation, but yeah, when I can make it work...

Matt Colville has a very similar approach called "Orcs Attack!" where if nothing happens for more than then minutes, well, orcs attack.

Thank you!

You're welcome.
It can't be used all of the time or it gets old, but starting a battle or calling for a saving throw can be a pretty good way to get disengaged players to engage with the game again.

I suspect Matt Colville, whoever that is, was borrowing it from "Chandler's Law", Raymond Chandler's advice to pulp writers: When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand. It means, basically, when you've written yourself into a corner and don't know how to go any further, introduce a new and possibly threatening element.

Generally by acting petulant and persecuted. Like "I already told you I can't think of anything! Why are you rubbing it in!"

It sounds like you weren't giving them any useful suggestions, like "why don't you try x, y, or z," but instead appeared to them to be condescendingly saying "start from the beginning again." I wouldn't have just said "go look at your character sheet again," or just repeated the flavor text about the room. I would have given suggestions.

Again, nothing good is going to happen until the game gets moving again, so get it moving, by hook or by crook.

I think we are getting our conversations crossed; the situation last session where the players couldn't convince the Sidhe and had to go with a different ally wasn't a big deal. The stuck in the tomb for three hours was absolutely a big deal.

Well, we're talking about underlying problems as well as specific instances. Did you make any "broad sweeping changes in how I run the game" after the wasted 3-hour session? Did your players make a fundamental change in how they play? If not then the underlying issue that caused the wasted session is probably still there and is a big enough deal that you should do something fairly drastic to try to correct it.

But what if you are sending someone to be a messenger, or a scout, or a trader, or a diplomat? Things that require a lot of time and travel.

Then it gets handwaved. The henchman's controlling player makes maybe one appropriate skill roll to resolve the attempt, maybe with the result to be revealed only when the henchman rejoins the group, and we get back to what's happening to the player characters.

I'm not going to have a whole group remain idle for a couple of hours while one player goes off on his own and does important stuff on his own, so I'm certainly not going to do that if they send off a henchman on his own to do important stuff.

If I absolutely must have important stuff happen to the henchman while away on this job, then the whole group gets to take up temporary characters who are doing this important stuff with the henchman.

Likewise, what if one of your henchmen gets captured and interrogated?

Then we play out the rescue attempt with the PCs, with a roll to resolve what the henchman gave away when he's rescued and we know how long he was in the bad guy's clutches. Possibly we play out an attempt by the henchman to escape with the PC controlling the henchman, but only if it's not going to take very long.

[Talakeal]

If it's a recurring problem then it's likely the general issue will remain until you are in fact willing to make a "broad sweeping change to the way you run games."

The thing is, the broad sweeping changes are for that specific situation that caused the problem, not the problem itself.

For example, not requiring a charisma test when buffed by language spells would have prevented them getting stuck that one time, but not done anything about getting stuck as a whole.
Or letting NPCs run summons as secondary PCs would have stopped Bob getting mad about my ruling on a spell effect that one time, but does nothing about the problem that he lacks the trust / respect for authority to accept a ruling that doesn't go his way and acts out as a response.
Etc.

...I suspect Matt Colville, whoever that is...

He is a game designer with a youtube channel about how to GM, and a pretty good one imo.

I'm not going to have a whole group remain idle for a couple of hours while one player goes off on his own and does important stuff on his own, so I'm certainly not going to do that if they send off a henchman on his own to do important stuff.

If I absolutely must have important stuff happen to the henchman while away on this job, then the whole group gets to take up temporary characters who are doing this important stuff with the henchman.

Then we play out the rescue attempt with the PCs, with a roll to resolve what the henchman gave away when he's rescued and we know how long he was in the bad guy's clutches. Possibly we play out an attempt by the henchman to escape with the PC controlling the henchman, but only if it's not going to take very long.

You are preaching to the choir here. I do it much the same.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

While I agree that the role of GM is sometimes also the role of coach, it is both system dependent and table dependent as regards how much is the right amount. And a light touch is usually the better approach. (How do I know? I learned the hard way and I saw good examples of good coaching by other GMs).

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.

Interesting pet metaphor; the vision I had in my mind was a hamster running and running in his wheel.

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.

There are other coaching styles, though.

Do you seriously, honestly believe any of Talakeal's players signed up for him to teach them how they should play RPGs?

A spot of coaching here and there can be beneficial, however, it's quite table, system, and person dependent.

...attacking friendly NPC...

you read that wrongly.
Our IFF as they came through the door was "unknown" rather than "hostile" or "friendly"

Rather than engage in parley, just having come out of a brutal fight, some reacted with "engage if not friendly." During that engagement we discovered "Wait, friendlies!" and that's why they didn't end up dead. As I mentioned that I think our error, collectively, was not to go parley first.

And in the previous battle (session A) which was brutal, my warlock had to face down the bard and the rogue who wanted to kill the Grand Vizier (which is who we'd been pursuing through the palace). I prevailed on the rogue to "knock out" rather than kill, and that paid off in our most recent session (session C). How? We engaged in discussion, got some info, and were led to the wardrobe that the evil demon summoner usurper uses to travel unseen from his palace to this palace (which is mostly the administrative one).
Session B is where the priests stumbled across us...

[Keltest]

So you want me to act on advice that I don't even *vaguely* agree with?

And I am the one treating people like disobedient puppies?

Bluntly, yes. Pretty much definitionally you don't know what the correct solution is. If you did, you wouldn't be asking for advice. You could of course ignore the advice you specifically asked for, but if youre going to do that I suggest in the future when you make a thread to whine about your players, you skip the pretense of asking for advice so you can at least ignore it for being unsolicited.

Yeah, I stopped asking for advice here a long time ago. Most everything was some variation on "dump the players", "talk to the players', "you're a bad person playing D&D wrong", and "you're a bad person doing hostile power trip GMing". Only one of those is not horrible toxic 'advice' or totally uselessly inaccurate, and that one already happens.

99 times out of 100, communication will solve a table problem, and the one time it doesn't, one party or the other separating from the table due to irreconcilable differences, voluntarily or otherwise, is the solution. There's nothing toxic about leaving a table or removing a player that is genuinely, irreconcilably incompatible. If you regularly resort to talking out the issue and it doesn't solve your problems such that you need to ask for advice on it, then you have probably dismissed the solution somewhere.

[Kish]

One recurring theme here, I think, is that the same words don't have to mean the same thing, if the words not stated are different.

Specifically right now, I think the value of "talk to your players" varies widely--from close to 100% to 0%--depending on whether the person saying it, hearing it, or replying "I do talk to my players" means something closer to "I exchange information with my players pursuant to understanding each others' equally-likely-to-be-valid viewpoints" or "I try to explain to my players why they're wrong."

[gbaji]

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

Or. I'm intentionally making a point that "control" means... well... "control" (the actual wording used in the dominate spell for example). If someone argues that "the player only actually controls their own PC", this does seem like an obvious counter. Yes... It's also a tautology. That was kinda the point. X does in fact actually equal X. Shocking!

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

Sure. And this is certainly more of a GM style/preferrence thing. But my approach is "when in doubt, and the creature is controlled by, working for, created by, or otherwise connected to the PC, just let the player play the character". If a PC has a hireling, and something happens that interacts with said hireling, I"m going to ask the player whose PC the hireling works for "What is your hireling doing?", and as long as the answer is a reasonable thing for said hireling to do, I'm going to accept the players answer as being what the hireling does. Barring some conflict or questionable instructions, or other situation which necessitates me overruling the player, I'm going to just let them "play the character".

It's easier to do things this way, and you avoid conflicts where the player thinks the hireling should have done one thing, but the GM decides to have the hireling do something else entirely. Hence, why that should (IMO) be the "default". Obviously, if the GM is specifically playing out a scenario involving the hireling betraying the PC for some reason (being bribed, extorted, dominated), that's another story. But pretty much any other situation? Just let the player run the darn thing. What's the harm?

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'm not even talking about roleplaying. I'm just talking about basic decision making here. Does the hireling attack? Does he run for cover? Does he light the building on fire? Does he use up valuable resources wastefully? The problem is that there are a lot of things that these sorts of characters may do in a game, which may be helpful or harmful. If the GM has a history of having these sorts of characters consistently do things that are harmful rather than helpful, then this can become a sticking point. And no amount of the GM saying "I run the NPCS in the game" is going to mitigate that the players are going to be pissed off about this sort of thing.

It's bad enough when players do harmful or obnoxious/annoying things in game and excuse it with "that's what my character would do!". It's 10x worse when the GM does this (again, barring situations where for some reason that character is intentionally doing this for nefarious/plot related reasons).

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

Because you're taking it out of context. The context is that Bob cast an illusion spell and gave a broad wording as to how his illusion would behave. That wording never once included specific instructions as to what the illusion would do in the case a monster attacked. Talakeal decided to interpret the broad wording in the exact opposite way that Bob expected the illusion to act.

If the GM is actually ruling that "anything you don't specifically define will be inerpreted by me" (and the GM seems to consistently use whatever semantic manipulations he can find to have the illusion do the opposite of what the player wants), then yes, the only way to get the illusion to *not* do the opposite of what you want, is to write an infinitely long document describing every single possible thing that could happen, and the exact reaction the illusion will have in respose.

That case is what actually exists in Talakeal's game, and how he rules on this spell. So yeah. Given that is "choice number 1", then choice number two is: "just let the player decide what the illusion does"

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.

Yes. You are correct. The player should not have to give this much specific detail. But Talakeal's ruling on the spell in play requires it. Bob did not clearly state what he wanted his illusion to do in the case the party was attacked by a monster, so Talakeal used that lack of specificity to decide it would cower away from the monster (despite being an illusion and thus immune to physical damage). Bob (quite reasonably) argued that his illusion, which he presumably created specifically to draw fire away from him (what else do you think the player is doing by creating an illusionary copy of himself travelling with the party, while he lurks around invisibly?) should... in fact... act to "draw fire".

But the fact that he apparently failed to make this abundantly clear to Talakeal, resulted in Talakeal interpreting Bob's statement: "It'll travel with the party and look and act like me" to mean that it would cower and run from a monster, just like Bob would in the same situation. Which was not at all what Bob actually wanted, nor what he expected the illusion to do.

My "solution" to this problem ("when in doubt, let the player run the <whatever>" would have worked in this case. Bob didn't specify what the illusion should do in this specific situation, that puts it "in doubt", so just ask Bob "What does your illusion do?". Problem solved, and we move on with the game. Instead, they got into a huge argument over this.

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?

No. I'm responding to a specific case, where the GM very directly did exactly what I'm talking about and I'm saying "here's how you avoid that problem you just had".

I do expect that at most tables, with most players, and most GMs, this is not as much of an issue. But at this table, and with this set of players, and with this GM? It does seem to be an issue that requires a solution.

Thus, the proposed solution. Most GMs would not have intepreted Bob's statement about his illusion so literally. And yeah, if I were in a real life relationship with someone who did that to me constantly, I'd be kicking them to the curb too. I expect most reasonable people not to make those kinds of strange and unlikely assumptions (why would anyone want their invulnerable illusion to run from the monster rather than draw its fire?), and on the off chance they aren't sure, maybe take the totally crazy step of.... wait for it... asking me. If I ask my SO to take the garbage in the kitchen out to the dumpster, and she notices that I've placed my briefcase with my laptop on the lid of the trash container in the kitchen for some reason, I'd expect her *not* to blithely assume I must have wanted to toss my laptop in the garbage, but assume that I must have accidentally placed it there. And even if she's unsure, I'd expect her to come and ask me.

When in doubt. Ask questions. Saves a ton of problems, both in life and in gaming.

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!

I think you have that wrong. Talakeal assumed the players would think that info was relevant and would pass it along to the Fae. But they didn't.

They "withheld it" because they didn't think it was relevant. See how that's a bit of a conundrum?


It's also of note just how many of these issue derive from the players and the GM not understanding what the other is thinking, doing, or what they know, don't know, understand, etc. Miscommunication seems rampant here.


Which is also why I recommended, very very early in this thread, that the moment the players seem confused, or are doing something the GM does not understand (or at not doing something the GM expects them to do), the GM needs to stop the game, and talk directly to the players and sort things out. Determine what they know. What they think is important. Ask them questions? The sheer number of times Talakeal has said "I didn't find out they thought <something completely incorrect> until after the session" absolutely screams that the problem is that he's not stopping the game while the session is going on and making sure everyone is on the same page.

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.

Sure. But this only highlights the problem with "choice 1" above. If the player must define how the spell (in this case illusion) behaves when casting the spell, and is not allowed to make adjustments later on, or give it specific commands in specific situations after the fact, then that puts pressure on the player to "write a massive document" to describe how the spell will behave, right? And sure, with some spells, this is not a big deal. I cast a darkness field in an area, all I'm doing is defining the area in which the darkness exists. No biggie if I can't change the shape/area later.

But a long term illusion spell, which you expect to fulfill a specific function, and which may need to perform that function (whatever it is) in a potentially limitless variety of situations? Now we're getting ourselves into problems trying to run it the way Talakeal is. We even examined some hypotheticals in a previous thread about this. One was a case where the party has killed a guard, so they create an illusion of the guard so as to conceal the fact that they killed the real one. The obvious assumption is "this illusion is pretending to be the real guard, and will attempt to convince anyone that this is the case, but it actually works for us, and is covering our entry into the BBEGs lair", but Talakeal argued that if they didn't specify otherwise, and just said "the illusion will mimic the guard we killed", that he would have the illusion sound the alarm if it saw the party sneaking into the lair.

That's a pretty clear case of "gotcha" semantic games going on there. But this is how Talakeal said he would rule this. So yeah.... He's forcing the players to think about every possible situation in which the GM might twist their words around to use them against them, and having to cover it. He's treating this like it's a D&D wish spell, instead of an illusion. Which is... not a good way to do things if you have any intention to avoid unnecessary conflict in your game.

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

But it does, when it is. That's the problem here. When Talakeal raised this issue previously, we asked him for examples of how he would rule on different cases, specifically to get a sense of how much Bob's response was unreasonable, or if it was Talakeal playing semantic "gotcha" games. Every single case, when there was any possible way to interpret the players instructions in way that would cause them harm, that's how Talakeal said he would run things.

So yeah. It's not just capricious. It's about using players spells against them whenever possible. That's just not good GMing IMO.

The problem is that it (at least appears!) that Talakeal honestly thinks this is how to interpret the wording the players have used. He's not intentionally going "gotcha". He legitimately believes that when Bob said "I want the illusion to be a copy of me" that this meant it should behave like Bob in all situations, including cowering if a monster appeared and attacked the party. He legitimately believes that if the hypothetical wizard creates an illusion of a guard to replace the one they killed, that he wants the guard to behave so much like the real one that it'll sound the alarm if it sees the party (just like the real guard would).

Given that Talakeal thinks this way, and that he's not likely to be able to undo his own thought processes and judgement in this regard anytime soon, the best possible solution to provide to him, is to have him not making these kinds of decisions for player created illusuions, or dominated creatures, or hirelings, or other similar cases. He's shown (via numerous and consistent answers to hypothetical cases) a complete inability to accurately judge what his players actually mean when they give instructions like this. So the best solution is for him not to actually be the one making that judgement in the first place.

This is not a knock on Talakeal. It's an observation. Everyone has limitations. Everyone has things they just aren't good at. They key in life is to recognize those things and adjust for them. There are things that I suck at. I know I suck at them. So when a situation comes up that calls for those things to be done, I find someone else to help do them. Or at the very least, I make sure to bring someone over and ask them "does this look right to you?" before commiting to whatever it was. Again though, the old standy works: When in doubt: ask. It's not a freaking sign of weakness to ask the question "does this make sense?", "is this what you meant?", "am I doing this right?".

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.

Yeah. There's a bit of speculative reading between the lines I'm engaged in here. I freely admit it.

But in this case, Talakeal himself stated that he interpreted his players confusion at being asked to RP out the conversation as him wanting to roll dice instead based on "Brian has asked to just roll dice instead of RP before". So I don't think it's unreasonable to take away from this that Talakeal has an established "either RP or roll dice" mechanism going on. Yes. He followed up with "depending on what is said, I'll decide the difficulty or even auto fail/success", which certainly sounds reasonable, and for all I know it is reasonable. But... I again fall back to the sheer volume of stories he's posted in which (IMO at least), Talakeal has made some strange rulings that I would not have made the same way at all (and consistently has resulted in arguments and game stoppages in his games).

And yeah. I'm also reading between the lines here and assuming that if a player is actually telling the GM "I'd rather roll dice than RP", that this means that the GM is asking for more RP than the players want to particpate in (or at least, at that particular moment, the player would prefer not to, even if maybe otherwise they would do so. This is not an all or nothing scenario). Certainly, if the GM is actually misinterpteting something from the player as "I want to roll dice instead of RP", this suggests that this is a common tradeoff, right? Why do you suppose that came to be in the first place?

Speculation? Sure. Reasonable speculation? Absolutely.

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"?

But that's part of why I take the position I do. RP is subjective. Whether someone is "good at it" is dependent on how the GM perceives that. So if the GM decides that the players approach to trying to convince the stone statue to give them the info they need is good, they give the information. If it's "ok", they require a roll. And if it's "offensive" you get nothing. But, as you point out, different players may simply be better at this than others. And sometimes, the approach may be somewhat random, and the player may not figure out that the GM has decided that this stone statue, being made out of stone, only respects hard forceful language. Or maybe the GM decides that this stone statue is neurotic and emotional about being made of stone and unable to move for eternity, so the way to get info is to comfort it and tell it everything's going to be ok (be it's friend). Or maybe... <insert huge variety of different things that may work, depending on what personality the GM decided this particular stone statue has>.''

I prefer not to do that at all, since it may put the players in the position of "guess what's in the GM's mind". And some players may be good at guessing, or picking up clues and figuring it out. Others may not. Depends on how good the GM is at providing those clues too.

It's just too subjective IMO. I prefer to approach this in a more programmatic manner. Either the stone statue is willing to provide the info, or it is not. If it is, then any means found whch allows you to communicate with the statue automatically succeeds (again, barring the player intentionally saying "I'm going out of my way to offend the statue" type nonsense). If I've decided that some kind of persuasion roll is required, then that roll is required, no matter how the player RPs things out (again, barring the player intentionally tanking things). I don't play the "guess the right approach" game. You can RP things out, but that's going to be you and I having fun RPing out the scene. It's never actually going to determine success or failure. If you succeed in actually asking the question, you will get the answer. Done.

And yeah, if the statue is not going to give the information (it's evil, or deceptive, or has been ordered not to), then simple persuasion will not work. You must additionally use some other skill that allows you to somehow trick or force people who are unwilling to give information to do so. And yes, this could also include a RP session if you want, but is also not required. You can literally tell me "I cast stone speak and ask the stone where the trap door is". The stone will say "I'm not telling you nothing interloper. My master has commanded me to keep all people out!". Then you may say "Ok. I'll cast my command stone spell <or whatever>". And now you've forced the stone statue to speak (or whatever other method you use).

Using RP dialogue for conversations and to determine "what" you talk about or ask is fine. But using it to determine your success at getting an answer is a slippery slope. I'd prefer to avoid it. Again, there's pretty much zero RP determination here (again, assuming the player at some point literally says anything like "where is the trap door" in the RP dialogue) for whether you succeed or fail, unless you introduce some other elements into the equation (like creating a personality for the NPC, their likes dislikes, and thus what method of speaking will work with them). And those elements have a strong tendency towards "guess what's in the GM's mind" games.


That's not to say that this can't be a sucessful method for doing this. But given the repeated posts about the difficulty Talakeal and his players have in communicating with and understanding each other? This seems like a recipe for disaster.

[GloatingSwine]

One recurring theme here, I think, is that the same words don't have to mean the same thing, if the words not stated are different.

Specifically right now, I think the value of "talk to your players" varies widely--from close to 100% to 0%--depending on whether the person saying it, hearing it, or replying "I do talk to my players" means something closer to "I exchange information with my players pursuant to understanding each others' equally-likely-to-be-valid viewpoints" or "I try to explain to my players why they're wrong."

Most of the "Talk to your players" advice in this and other similar threads are about situations where the DM is authoritative and it's better for players to have information before they act, rules and rulings (eg. how spells work) and the state of the world (consequences the player might not have anticipated).

So actually it's the third thing, "remind the players of things they've forgotten, or call to their attention things they have missed".

[glass]

-good stuff-

I agree with pretty much everything in this mammoth post, with one exception: I would not characterise conversations to clarify or align the GM's and players' understanding of something as "stopping the game". I would say it is very much part of the game, and an important part at that.

I particularly wanted to call attention to the final paragraph:

That's not to say that this can't be a sucessful method for doing this. But given the repeated posts about the difficulty Talakeal and his players have in communicating with and understanding each other? This seems like a recipe for disaster.

That is an example of what I was talking about when I said that Talakael goes in for "high-risk" playstyles and practices, when IMNSHO he should stick to lower-risk stuff. A better example than mist if those I could think of when I typed the post (which were honestly not great at getting the point across, for the most part).

[GloatingSwine]

TBH I think based on an exchange earlier part of the problem is that he's putting the information into the mouths of NPCs, rather than filling the gap between what the characters would know and what the players appear to know based on their actions with OOC talk because he wants to "avoid metagaming".

[Kish]

That is one way to absolutely guarantee that players or PCs who don't trust those NPCs won't trust the message.

I'm also curious about something else. Exactly how likely were the Seelie to screw over the PCs in some fashion if they had been open and trusting?

[Telok]

That is one way to absolutely guarantee that players or PCs who don't trust those NPCs won't trust the message.

I'm also curious about something else. Exactly how likely were the Seelie to screw over the PCs in some fashion if they had been open and trusting?

Probably very unlikely. Its a lot of work to break players out of preconceived notions and habits from dissimilar games. I'm working hard to break player habits about "guards" being either total mooks or 'level appropriate' or that mind flayers are some weird 'hive mind of evilz for lols'.

The overweight, blotchy, illithid taxi driver/bookie who wore Hawiian shirts and talk through a parrot that never.. never.. ever.. shut.. up.. was pretty good. But I still always needed to remind them several times each session that the ones staffing the illithid dominion embassy, the ones that are non-combat & non-government citizens, and the illithid outside the dominion are not the same groups. Your American resturant owner in Iowa is not a US State Department diplomat on a mission. While some random Aussie in Canberra is both neither of those and has no freaking clue why the American embassy in Sidney is trying to contact you. Can you please stop harassing random people of the same species but totally different nation, culture, and star system, and then go actually talk to the people who literally just said they had a clue for you?

Every. Single. Time.

[Keltest]

Probably very unlikely. Its a lot of work to break players out of preconceived notions and habits from dissimilar games. I'm working hard to break player habits about "guards" being either total mooks or 'level appropriate' or that mind flayers are some weird 'hive mind of evilz for lols'.

The overweight, blotchy, illithid taxi driver/bookie who wore Hawiian shirts and talk through a parrot that never.. never.. ever.. shut.. up.. was pretty good. But I still always needed to remind them several times each session that the ones staffing the illithid dominion embassy, the ones that are non-combat & non-government citizens, and the illithid outside the dominion are not the same groups. Your American resturant owner in Iowa is not a US State Department diplomat on a mission. While some random Aussie in Canberra is both neither of those and has no freaking clue why the American embassy in Sidney is trying to contact you. Can you please stop harassing random people of the same species but totally different nation, culture, and star system, and then go actually talk to the people who literally just said they had a clue for you?

Every. Single. Time.

I can generally respect this line of thinking, but when one of the gimmicks of the species you chose is that they are literally a telepathic hive mind, I think you've gone a couple steps beyond subverting expectations there to just flat out confusing people. If they aren't a hive mind and don't eat brains, I would argue they arent illithids in any meaningful sense and using the name is a mistake.

[Talakeal]

I can generally respect this line of thinking, but when one of the gimmicks of the species you chose is that they are literally a telepathic hive mind, I think you've gone a couple steps beyond subverting expectations there to just flat out confusing people. If they aren't a hive mind and don't eat brains, I would argue they arent illithids in any meaningful sense and using the name is a mistake.

Illithids have a hive mind?

That is one way to absolutely guarantee that players or PCs who don't trust those NPCs won't trust the message.

I'm also curious about something else. Exactly how likely were the Seelie to screw over the PCs in some fashion if they had been open and trusting?

No plans for a betrayal. Worst case scenario they would have had to promise someone a favor as a future scenario hooks.

I can’t say what i would have improvised if they had rolled a botch on a social check with them though, or how they would have reacted to belligerent PCs.

[Telok]

Illithids have a hive mind?

News to me. But WotC has retconned so much I can't keep up interest in all the word salad they vomit across the monster manuals. Did they change mind flayer stuff yet again? No, don't bother. I don't care.

[Keltest]

News to me. But WotC has retconned so much I can't keep up interest in all the word salad they vomit across the monster manuals. Did they change mind flayer stuff yet again? No, don't bother. I don't care.

Its not like a species wide thing, but within individual hives the Elder Brain is the controlling personality, and all the Illithids are linked to it, and via it to each other.

[Telok]

Its not like a species wide thing, but within individual hives the Elder Brain is the controlling personality, and all the Illithids are linked to it, and via it to each other.

So that's a 'no'. Not a hive mind and it still relies on lazy assumptions of a single monoculture and zero societal differences between all members of the species. Just like all Americans like big cars, baseball, and eat too much fast food. No thank you. That's boring and... lets just no do the rant.

[glass]

Illithids have a hive mind?

Not inherently, but the influence of an elder brain is functionally pretty close to it.

[Kish]

I'm not on board with pushing illithid even more in the direction of being one-dimensional mooks with a genius intellect as an informed attribute than they already are.

(Not that I know why illithid suddenly got brought in, so hey.)

[Keltest]

So that's a 'no'. Not a hive mind and it still relies on lazy assumptions of a single monoculture and zero societal differences between all members of the species. Just like all Americans like big cars, baseball, and eat too much fast food. No thank you. That's boring and... lets just no do the rant.

... So when I said "yes, theyre a hive mind within individual hives" you somehow interpreted that as "no"?

More generally, Illithids being famously, implausibly monocultural is the point. Theyre alien beings all working towards the same unified goal. So going "yeah, these guys are all individualists who eat, sleep and work just like anyone else." is... not Illithids in any meaningful sense. Just people with tentacle mustaches.