Players characters evading direct questions

[kyoryu]

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

Not directly, but it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think this really helps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This feels like a strawman.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Also, nobody is saying "prevent the players from making mistakes". We're saying "make sure the players understand the situation enough and are clear enough on what the characters would know that they don't do things the characters know would be dumb." That's an entirely different thing.