Players characters evading direct questions

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh no. He is actually a pookha and never gives straight answers anyway. (Pookha are prohibited from ever telling the truth.)

Gee, just like Kenku in D&D 5e, this character class/race is set up for grief play, when the core means of playing a TRGPG is verbal/oral communication. This is designed as an explicit obstacle to play.
Or you just have a grief player.

I've come to think that a lot of the D&D-type TTRPG & CRPG scene instills a sort of... I'd call it "transactional violence interaction equality" between PCs and NPCs. That is: PCs and real opponent NPCs (not mooks & chaff) are given abilities to annihilate each other and are expected to use them as often as possible.

Maybe at your tables.

You know some ****ed up kids then.

My experiences from about grade 5 to about grade 10 supports Vahnavoi's point nicely. So does the savage bullying on-line that my wife's niece received a decade or so ago. Her mother eventually took her phone away as part of the therapy to get her to go back to school again.
Did you catch that?
The on-line facebook/text bullying was so nasty that she would get dropped off at school. Until the Vice Principle about a week into this, wondering where this student was and no doctor's note for absences, my sister- in-law was not aware that her daughter would enter the front foyer, watch her mother drive off, and then walk away from the school each day and spend most of the day somewhere else. (Her antagoninsts were no better in person, as it turned out).

Kids are mean.

Pay attention to specific arguments made: you being likeliest to meet a behaviour in a group, isn't the same as majority of a group engaging in it at any given moment. Even with a phase every person goes through, it won't occur in everyone at the same time nor be relevant for all of their lives.
It still stands that if somebody's babbling about how they'll kill everybody over a minor slight, that's more likely to be (say) a 7-year-old having a fit who hasn't yet learned to emotionally regulate, versus a functional adult. (Etc.) And it isn't rare. Especially not in context of games.

I have seen similar.

*Because the GM just wins in that case.

No. That isn't the case. I said the DM/GM has to play the roles of adversaries, not that the GM/DM is their adversary. Words matter.
The GM/DM also plays the helpful old granny who makes them pie. The GM/DM also plays the role of quest giver, and the role of city officials who are neutral ...
Beyond that, Vahnavoi covered the problem with your incorrect statement.

[Unoriginal]

I've GMed for groups of kids several times for different events. Youngest one was around 6, I think.

Out of them, there were some kids who felt entitled to just "win" whatever they did, and in that category there's only two kids who thought "saying/doing stuff we think is shocking is fun", with only one that pushed that into disruptive behavior.

Just an anecdote, though. It's probable that most disruption-prone kids weren't interested in "discover TTRPGs" events, especially 10+ years ago.

[Talakeal]

I feel like GMing is always like walking a tightrope. I want the player's to have fun, and if they aren't winning, they aren't having fun. So I want them to succeed. So I need to help them.

But... if I help them too much, the game slows down to a crawl and I get called out for railroading.

On the other hand... if I don't help them enough, they throw tantrums and I get called out for being a killer GM.

Its really hard sometimes.

Like, in previous threads I have been told that I always need to place dead adventurers outside of monster lairs to telegraph what sort of threats will be present within. But, then in this thread, having multiple NPCs ask direct questions trying to get the PCs to share the clues they need to share, it gets perceived as trying to force an outcome.

Talakeal, that's the point of OOC conversations, to facilitate communication. It isn't metagaming, it isn't cheating, it's using the tool as intended, for what it's designed to do.

Also, all the Fey asking the same question (or variants thereon) was much more metagamey and immersion-breaking than asking an OOC question ever could be.

There is a fine line between facilitating communication and railroading / playing their characters for them.

I don't know, like, it just feels better to use in character dialogue or in world clues than just breaking character.

Like, if the players are missing a hidden door, I feel like its a lot more appropriate to say something like "You notice scratches on the floor like the book shelf has been moved repeatedly" than to say "Guys, there is a hidden door behind the book shelf. If you want to find the treasure, you need to find it!".

Or maybe that is just me?

OK, you've got your answer. /thread?

Also, no need for you to be surprised about it, when it's this obvious that anything where a direct answer is required just isn't going to happen in this game. /game?

It explains why they won't offer the fey anything for their assistance and insist they have nothing to give, but simply answering a request to share information isn't going to taken as a promise even with the trickiest of fey (unless I suppose the players decide to add unnecessary figures of speech like "I'll eat my hat if this information isn't correct!" or "I know this is true, I stake my life on it!").

What did the players say in response to that?

Brian (who is playing the group's face because he is the only one who is really comfortable talking in character) got all depressed and melodramatic and said that he was too stupid for RPGs and needed to find a new hobby. Then the new girl tried to gaslight me into believing that the scene interrogating the werewolf for information didn't happen until after the meeting with the Sidhe and therefore I was asking them for information they didn't have.

But at that point it was late and everyone was already tired and frustrated, so I dropped the matter.

Another consideration. After the first 2 interactions, you realise they're going no where. Ask them to roll social skills. If it's a fail tell them "Your approach is unsuccessful, unless you want to try something significantly different, we'll close the scene there"
They still don't have the help you wanted them to, but with only a couple of conversations and a roll, there's less game time invested in something which might look like a waste of time.

Though how much of this you can apply to your game is hard for me to know

I have done that in the past, typically it results in the players doing nothing. I don't know, like I have said before, they tend to get tunnel vision and if their first approach doesn't work, they get frustrated, give up, and withdraw from the game. To quote Papa Flanders, "I've tried nothing, and I am all out of ideas!".

So, in this case, I hoped that I could get an NPC to lead them to a different approach by asking direct questions. It didn't work, but it was a hope. Even though, I don't consider the evening wasted as they still made a bunch of contacts, learned about fairy society, and spent time RPing with colorful characters. But from a "goal-oriented" perspective I suppose it was.

Both you and your players repeatedly use "optimal" in the same way as the junior engineer in the joke about spherical cows in a vacuum.

As in:

"I have found the solution, provided we ignore all factors that would prevent my solution from working."

Ok. So what term would you use for "Going with the strategy that will solve the scenario with a maximized reward to risk ratio?"

If the players have perfect knowledge, you have, imo, reduced the game to a math problem, and like all math problems, one can figure out a solution.


For example, imagine how you would plan your route when going for a speed-run or a completionist run in a video game.

Or, for example, if you know that there is a troll-bane sword on level 4 of the dungeon, and you know there is a troll lair behind the door on level 2, you would probably wait to open that door until you had the sword, whereas someone who was entering the dungeon blind would probably explore level two before going down to level 4.

[Vyke]

No. That isn't the case. I said the DM/GM has to play the roles of adversaries, not that the GM/DM is their adversary. Words matter.
The GM/DM also plays the helpful old granny who makes them pie. The GM/DM also plays the role of quest giver, and the role of city officials who are neutral ...
Beyond that, Vahnavoi covered the problem with your incorrect statement.

I'd have appreciated going without the condescension at the end there, but it's the internet I guess.

I will point out, however, that actually you said in relation to the GM being an adversary:

It's a matter of degree, but this will be present since the DM / GM has to role play the adversaries.

I disagree that there is ever adversarial relationship between the GM and the players (at least, there shouldn't be). This is because I think that the GM plays the role of the characters adversaries but is not the players' adversary. I think the difference is important because, as you say, words matter. And from your post it seems you think the same as me yet think I am incorrect (which I find somewhat confusing). Vahnavoi on the other hand thinks the distinction is a:

pointless convolution of language to insist the game master isn't an adversary when they're playing adversarial roles.

I disagree. An adversary is defined as a person, group or force that one contends with, opposes or resists. That's what it means and the definitions matter as discussed above. The relationship between the GM and players and the rules elements run by the GM and the characters are very different and I feel very sorry for the players of GM's who can't see that.

However if the relationship between a GM and the players IS adversarial then the GM will win. Because they can change the rules elements and make the adjudication as they see fit. They can probably do it only once and it will be no fun for anyone, but they can "win". Because the GM dictates the "win condition", the rules allowed and the interpretation of those rules. That fact, specifically is why it so important to specify that GM/ player dynamics are different to rules element/ character dynamics. As a player you have to be able to trust that the GM has your fun at heart, even if they are doing things detrimental to your character. That trust is important precisely BECAUSE it can be abused so absolutely.

Additionally Vahnavoi, I am perfectly aware that roleplay originated from wargaming. This is not my first day :) . However those games have changed and the roles involved have changed as well. As I read my copy of Keep on the Borderlands I can see multiple times that the GM is instructed to "give the players a reasonable chance of success". This isn't adversarial and Keep was published in, what, 1980? If that gets that you're not just out to annihilate the characters without fair chance (Owlbear notwithstanding), then 44 years on, I think we can move past "It came from wargames and wargames were strictly adversarial, the only difference is now the referee is adversarial as well".

It seems obvious to me, but, I guess... I dunno... I've managed to play the monsters that have attacked my friend's characters, I've designed the traps that threatened the characters, adjudicated the random events that plagued the characters without ever being the players' enemy. Their characters probably wouldn't think highly of me but I don't sit around a table with them, just my friends.... and they keep coming back for games I run. So maybe I'll carry on doing what I do...

[Vahnavoi]

Ok. So what term would you use for "Going with the strategy that will solve the scenario with a maximized reward to risk ratio?"

You don't seem to understand my criticism. Vast majority of time, when you or your players call a strategy "optimal", it is NOT a strategy with maximized reward to risk ratio in any actual scenario under discussion. It is a strategy with maximized reward to risk ratio in a vacuum, with spherical opponents. Quite often, when you come here to complain, you yourself can point out the obvious flaw... yet then turn around and insist the players are following an "optimal" strategy. The core issue is this:

If the players have perfect knowledge, you have, imo, reduced the game to a math problem, and like all math problems, one can figure out a solution.

You have way too much faith in mathematical abilities of yourself and your players.

Chess is a perfect information game. No living human can math out the best possible strategy for a Chess game.

Checkers is a simpler perfect information game. Better yet, it is a solved game! A computer can be programmed to always play a perfect game of Checkers. Good luck trying to do the same as a human.

For example, imagine how you would plan your route when going for a speed-run or a completionist run in a video game.

Even moderately complex games can keep speedrun competition circuits going for years as hundreds of players try to figure out the best route. Completionist runs are fairly different, as they are often designed to be completeable by the average end user. Yet, genuine optimal paths for most such games are often not known at all since it doesn't take a lot for that pursuit to turn into a Travelling Salesman problem that'd require a computer to run an algorithm to approximate the correct result.

The efforts of you or your players going through an adventure once aren't on the same level.

You are one of many people who are unreasonably afraid of perfect information, because your hubris blinds you to the difference of an optimal path existing in theory versus you and your players being able to find it in practice. Which, in turn, leads to you and your players proclaim solutions are "optimal" when they are at best functional, and often not even that.

---

I disagree. An adversary is defined as a person, group or force that one contends with, opposes or resists.

And what exactly do you think happens then when a game master plays characters and forces that content with, oppose and resist the player characters? What exactly do you think players are doing when contending with characters and forces made to oppose and resist them?

The relationship between the GM and players and the rules elements run by the GM and the characters are very different and I feel very sorry for the players of GM's who can't see that.

Or, you have an erroneous idea of how adversarial games are run and designed. Again:

However if the relationship between a GM and the players IS adversarial then the GM will win.

This continues to be false. Again, we can replace the game master with a Chess player suggesting horribly lopsided board set-ups. The fact that they can do that doesn't mean that it is in their best interest, since any victory gained so is hollow. They get more, and more meaningful, gameplay by agreeing to a fairer match-up. "Give the (other) player(s) a reasonable chance of success" isn't an advice that's limited to non-adversarial games, to the contrary, adversarial games live by it. That's the reason why classic strategy games such as Chess strive for equal play power at the start of the game. Similarly, you seem to think trust isn't a factor in adversarial games, but it absolutely is. There is no meaning to an adversarial game without players being able to trust the other to follow rules of engagement.

You think the game master isn't an adversary, because you don't understand the reason why an adversary would self-limit to particular rules.

[Vyke]

You don't seem to understand my criticism. Vast majority of time, when you or your players call a strategy "optimal", it is NOT a strategy with maximized reward to risk ratio in any actual scenario under discussion. It is a strategy with maximized reward to risk ratio in a vacuum, with spherical opponents. Quite often, when you come here to complain, you yourself can point out the obvious flaw... yet then turn around and insist the players are following an "optimal" strategy. The core issue is this:



You have way too much faith in mathematical abilities of yourself and your players.

Chess is a perfect information game. No living human can math out the best possible strategy for a Chess game.

Checkers is a simpler perfect information game. Better yet, it is a solved game! A computer can be programmed to always play a perfect game of Checkers. Good luck trying to do the same as a human.



Even moderately complex games can keep speedrun competition circuits going for years as hundreds of players try to figure out the best route. Completionist runs are fairly different, as they are often designed to be completeable by the average end user. Yet, genuine optimal paths for most such games are often not known at all since it doesn't take a lot for that pursuit to turn into a Travelling Salesman problem that'd require a computer to run an algorithm to approximate the correct result.

The efforts of you or your players going through an adventure once aren't on the same level.

You are one of many people who are unreasonably afraid of perfect information, because your hubris blinds you to the difference of an optimal path existing in theory versus you and your players being able to find it in practice. Which, in turn, leads to you and your players proclaim solutions are "optimal" when they are at best functional, and often not even that.

---



And what exactly do you think happens then when a game master plays characters and forces that content with, oppose and resist the player characters? What exactly do you think players are doing when contending with characters and forces made to oppose and resist them?



Or, you have an erroneous idea of how adversarial games are run and designed. Again:



This continues to be false. Again, we can replace the game master with a Chess player suggesting horribly lopsided board set-ups. The fact that they can do that doesn't mean that it is in their best interest, since any victory gained so is hollow. They get more, and more meaningful, gameplay by agreeing to a fairer match-up. "Give the (other) player(s) a reasonable chance of success" isn't an advice that's limited to non-adversarial games, to the contrary, adversarial games live by it. That's the reason why classic strategy games such as Chess strive for equal play power at the start of the game. Similarly, you seem to think trust isn't a factor in adversarial games, but it absolutely is. There is no meaning to an adversarial game without players being able to trust the other to follow rules of engagement.

You think the game master isn't an adversary, because you don't understand the reason why an adversary would self-limit to particular rules.

You believe the way you do. I disagree. I see no point to further discussion. We have both stated our position.

[Talakeal]

You are one of many people who are unreasonably afraid of perfect information, because your hubris blinds you to the difference of an optimal path existing in theory versus you and your players being able to find it in practice. Which, in turn, leads to you and your players proclaim solutions are "optimal" when they are at best functional, and often not even that.

I am not sure if you are trying to pull a nirvana fallacy or just trying to get in a cheap insult, but either way it is silly.

We both know that if the players have perfect information, the experience of playing the game is going to be vastly different than one in which they are limited to what their character knows.
We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort.
We both know that if the players know where all the treasure hidden they are going to get more rewards than if they don't.
We both know that if the players know where all the traps are and how to bypass them, they are going to take less damage.
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze.
We both know that if the players know all of the NPC's secrets and motivations, social challenges and mysteries will be a breeze.


Now, sure, one can make a super difficult scenario that is still challenging even with perfect information, but it wouldn't play like a traditional scenario, and would have to be so difficult that any player who did try and go in blind and play it in the traditional way is almost certain to fail.


Edit: Obviously I am speaking in generalities here.

[NichG]

We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort.
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze.

These in particular are manifestly false.

[Talakeal]

These in particular are manifestly false.

Care to back that up with any evidence?

Can you give me an example of a scenario which I have a reasonable chance of winning if I go in blind but can't stomp with sufficient preparation?

I mean like, even in a tabletop war-game which is designed to be nothing but a balanced combat, one can tailor their lists and tactics to give themselves a massive advantage if they know what their opponent is playing ahead of time. Now, imagine if your opponent also has to announce all of his tactics in advance before the game began like the GM would for the NPCs in a theoretical unlimited player knowledge scenario.

[NichG]

Care to back that up with any evidence?

Can you give me an example of a scenario which I have a reasonable chance of winning if I go in blind but can't stomp with sufficient preparation?

I mean like, even in a tabletop war-game which is designed to be nothing but a balanced combat, one can tailor their lists and tactics to give themselves a massive advantage if they know what their opponent is playing ahead of time. Now, imagine if your opponent also has to announce all of his tactics in advance before the game began like the GM would for the NPCs in a theoretical unlimited player knowledge scenario.

The example was literally in the post you responded to. Go and play a chess game with a player you've never met but who is around your level. You have perfect information, the game is still challenging, you still have an even chance of winning, and furthermore your chance of winning isn't even because of random factors - its entirely about how much skill and composure you can bring into the moment.

Now go and study the games of someone you're going to play against in chess. It will give you some advantage, but it will still matter far less than your own understanding of the game.

[Talakeal]

The example was literally in the post you responded to. Go and play a chess game with a player you've never met but who is around your level. You have perfect information, the game is still challenging, you still have an even chance of winning, and furthermore your chance of winning isn't even because of random factors - its entirely about how much skill and composure you can bring into the moment.

Now go and study the games of someone you're going to play against in chess. It will give you some advantage, but it will still matter far less than your own understanding of the game.

That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

Perfect information would be if your opponent told you, in advance, what moves he was planning and how he would react to each of your moves before he made them.

[NichG]

That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

Perfect information would be if your opponent told you, in advance, what moves he was planning and how he would react to each of your moves before he made them.

I've played Go that way against players stronger than me. It's worth a few stones handicap, but it definitely doesn't mean I can trivially beat them.

[Talakeal]

I've played Go that way against players stronger than me. It's worth a few stones handicap, but it definitely doesn't mean I can trivially beat them.

I find that hard to swallow, but never having played Go I will take your word for it. Even so, we are getting off in the the weeds, as I was talking about RPG adventures, not ever game ever made, although I would still posit that the vast majority of games are trivially easy if your opponent has to tell you every move they make well in advance.

[NichG]

I find that hard to swallow, but never having played Go I will take your word for it. Even so, we are getting off in the the weeds, as I was talking about RPG adventures, not ever game ever made, although I would still posit that the vast majority of games are trivially easy if your opponent has to tell you every move they make well in advance.

Perfect information games are IMO actually more able to be truly difficult than partial information and stochastic games, because you can't hide behind gambling. Stuff with uncertainties will generally make it so that plans more than a few steps deep are just pointless to make, so you don't have to push yourself to think deeply, just have a good standard operating procedure and be good at reacting to surprises. But perfect information games can be such that someone who plans 50 steps ahead has an advantage over someone who can only plan 30 steps ahead. And really, most people in any kind of complex game, can plan maybe 2 or 3 steps ahead at most. So you have a LOT of space for skill to matter.

But even taking that aside, there are tons of computer games where players can know as much as they could want about the units, how the AI makes decisions, etc. It still takes actual work and thought to come up with counter-strategies, to the extent that all of that information is out there - even pre-chewed by more experienced players - and people can still struggle to play through the harder fights in things like BG3 or Divinity or Pathfinder: WotR or whatever.

You are assigning way too much power to unknowns, and not nearly enough power to variations in your players' ability to even comprehend what is being put directly in their face.

[Kish]

Your generalizations baffle me and make me so glad my gaming (and life!) experience is nothing like yours, Talakeal, but, I want to zero in on one thing in particular:

"We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort."

The others appear to be claims about the necessity of obfuscation, but that one's just: modules are too easy.

I disagree. I think you would discover, if you asked and didn't immediately go "I don't believe you," that "modules are too easy" is a minority opinion, not the universally-acknowledged fact you're claiming it to be. And while I'm not seeing the relevance to anything concrete that's been brought up in this thread, I do see the relevance to the underlying problem: you run games which are harder than your players want them to be, and deal with that information by digging your heels in and declaring that easier games would be objectively worse.

[Talakeal]

Your generalizations baffle me and make me so glad my gaming (and life!) experience is nothing like yours, Talakeal, but, I want to zero in on one thing in particular:

"We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort."

The others appear to be claims about the necessity of obfuscation, but that one's just: modules are too easy.

I disagree. I think you would discover, if you asked and didn't immediately go "I don't believe you," that "modules are too easy" is a minority opinion, not the universally-acknowledged fact you're claiming it to be. And while I'm not seeing the relevance to anything concrete that's been brought up in this thread, I do see the relevance to the underlying problem: you run games which are harder than your players want them to be, and deal with that information by digging your heels in and declaring that easier games would be objectively worse.

I didn't say modules are too easy.

I said that a "fair" module would become too easy if you allowed the players to have total information transparency. Hell, there are a lot of modules that I think are too *hard* because they don't give you the necessary information to solve them. For example, I played a Delta Green module where the only way to end the haunting of a house was to smash every mirror in the house with an elder sign. Now, if it was just about smashing mirrors, there are enough clues one could theoretically come to that conclusion, but there are no elder signs in the adventure. The word elder sign is never once mentioned in the text. So you actually would need to grab an elder sign from a different module, carry it with you, and then completely unprompted decide to use it to smash all the mirrors in the haunted house. That is pure madness.

But... with total transparency of information, it is pretty simple.

A lot of modules are unfair against the players and are just too damn hard, but I still think if you gave the players time to study the module before running it (and they had the inclination to do so), your average group of players is going to find it to be a cake walk.

As for "an easier game is objectively worse" well... that depends on a lot of factors. But I will say that I doubt many players would enjoy a game where the GM simply listed out the steps necessary to achieve all of their goals and I am pretty sure the vast majority of them would complain that it was a massive railroad.

Perfect information games are IMO actually more able to be truly difficult than partial information and stochastic games, because you can't hide behind gambling. Stuff with uncertainties will generally make it so that plans more than a few steps deep are just pointless to make, so you don't have to push yourself to think deeply, just have a good standard operating procedure and be good at reacting to surprises. But perfect information games can be such that someone who plans 50 steps ahead has an advantage over someone who can only plan 30 steps ahead. And really, most people in any kind of complex game, can plan maybe 2 or 3 steps ahead at most. So you have a LOT of space for skill to matter.

But even taking that aside, there are tons of computer games where players can know as much as they could want about the units, how the AI makes decisions, etc. It still takes actual work and thought to come up with counter-strategies, to the extent that all of that information is out there - even pre-chewed by more experienced players - and people can still struggle to play through the harder fights in things like BG3 or Divinity or Pathfinder: WotR or whatever.

You are assigning way too much power to unknowns, and not nearly enough power to variations in your players' ability to even comprehend what is being put directly in their face.

Again, I am talking about RPG adventures, not every game ever made.

But I actually think a game of Chess with full information would be a lot like an RPG in the fact that it would, essentially, be your opponent playing both sides and "railroading" you to victory by pointing out every mistake you are about to make before you make it.

[NichG]

Again, I am talking about RPG adventures, not every game ever made.

Talakeal, the games I listed *are* RPGs!

They're cRPGs, because the sort of literal perfect information you're talking about is objectively possible for those, whereas for anything at a table it'd be 'well maybe the GM didn't tell you everything' or whatever and we could argue in circles forever. But those games are based off of tabletop RPG rulesets, the combats run more or less like tabletop combats can run (certainly not like theatre of the mind groups, or groups with heavy improvised actions, but RAW and minis groups its basically the same stuff).

But I actually think a game of Chess with full information would be a lot like an RPG in the fact that it would, essentially, be your opponent playing both sides and "railroading" you to victory by pointing out every mistake you are about to make before you make it.

Your opponent is only going to be able to tell you about the moves they see, and generally speaking in chess you aren't going to make a move if you see an obvious response to it. So the natural consequence of both players sharing total information about their thought process with each-other is that the game is decided by the consequences that neither player initially notices, but which become relevant later after the player who is helped or harmed by it has already committed. You can play by e.g. always just doing what your opponent tells you they would do in your situation, but at best you're going to tie and probably you're going to lose more than half the time if you do that because the opponent is taking moves where they wouldn't be thrilled to play any of the available responses.

Like, take Stockfish or AlphaGo or whatever, and say you have full access to that software and hardware to independently run it. You can see its 'thought process', all the branches of moves it considers, its relative probability of choosing each move, even ask it to play out theoretical continuations, and use all of that information in deciding what move you want to make. You're in timed games - say 3 hours per game, not too strict but enough you can't just take forever. I will bet that you still wouldn't be able to win more than 70% of the time in a 20 game series. If the computer always gets to go first, then unless you're a professional player I don't think you'll win even 1 game, even with access to the entire thought process and the ability so simulate the opponent and all of that.

If you just play the computer's moves against itself, you'll get something like a coin flip each time, but its like rock paper scissors - if you actually want to win on average, you have to abandon random play and actually try to deviate from the computer move.

[gbaji]

I want to communicate. But I want to do it without meta-gaming.

...

It was a multi hour scene. I can't possibly remember everything that was said. Over the course of the evening, they talked to half a dozen or so different NPCs, all of whom asked some variant of "What are the fomorians planning?" although exactly how the question was phrased varied from individual to individual.

You either need to drop into OOC communication and (as the GM) ask the players "Do you intend to tell the Seelie about the planned attack in the woods?", or if you really really really want/need to avoid that (which I don't consider metagaming at all, but whatever), then you need to have a "helper NPC" do the work for you. Have some NPC offer to assist the PCs with their interaction with the various factions/folks there. Have that NPC tell them "So. I talked to <factionA> and have discovered that they seem to have a significant interest in the Muir Woods. Perhaps if you have some information which may assist their operations there, they may be willing to assist you in turn". Basically hint the heck out of things to them. And honestly? If hinting fails, then just outright remind them (as the GM) that they know about this planned attack on the woods, and that information might just get them to help, where the mere presence of these werewolves in a tenement building will not.

The PCs were fairly forthcoming about what help they wanted; they wanted the Sidhe to storm their building and kill the werewolves. They were told multiple times that the fey are not going to risk their lives and open war with the werewolves without a very good reason, and then asked exactly what the fomorians were up to, to which the PCs just gave evasive non-committal answers.

I'll ask again: Did you straight up ask them (as the GM): "Do you tell them about the planned attack on the woods?". If you didn't do this, then you do not know if they withheld that information because they chose to withhold it, or they just plain didn't remember it, or didn't think it was relevant. There's a progresssion here. You give the players time to come up with stuff on their own. Then you use the NPC dialogue to hint at what they could do. Then be even more direct with the NPCs. But yeah, at some point, when it becomes clear that the PCs are not using some key piece of inforamtion, you as the GM need to drop out of character and just ask them directly. Otherewise, you'll never know if this is by intention, or accident.

Avoiding this out of a desire to "not metagame" is not a good approach IMO. You're going to have a lot more OOC conversations (mostly angry ones) as a result of not doing this sort of thing when it's appropriate to do so.

The fey didn't even know there was going to be an attack.

They made it clear that before they could help, they would need a good reason, and then directly asked what the formorians were planning.

The players then described the issue is "There will be more Fomorians in the city, and since we all know fomorians are evil, that isn't good!" without ever mentioning any sort of direct threat or plan posed by the fomori.

You've repeated the same sequence multiple times. But I still don't have the answer to the question: Did the players intentionally avoid telling the NPCs about the planned attack on the woods, or did they forget (or not know? Or not realize it was signficiant? etc). You will only ever know this if you ask them. And there is no harm in asking. If the players are supposed to already know about the attack, then asking them "do you tell them about the attack" provides zero additional information to the players. But if they've forgotten about it, then this will jog their memory and will help "unstick" the game.

The previous scene they had captured and interrogated one of the werewolves and learned what they were planning. They absolutely had this information, and it was absolutely fresh in their minds.

Now, whether or not they realized the important of what they learned, or had already forgotten it by the next scene, who can say?

Then ask! Seriously. At the point where it's clear that they should know this, should think to provide that to the Seelie to get their help, but aren't doing it, that's when you ask the question.

Continuing to ask (as the NPCs) "what are the formians planning" over and over, despite the PCs never giving the "right answer", is like the GM asking "are you sure you want to do that?" when the player says their character will do something the GM knows is a bad idea. Ask the correct/direct question.

So rather than just saying 'aha, I believe I understand, now I feel smart' and continuing to do the same thing, you actually try to elicit the information you're missing. And while I agree that 'asking the players explicitly' is the absolute first thing to do as you wrote, Talakeal did say they did that and got a non-answer. So to really figure out what's going on, you need to act differently and see if anything changes.

I agree that you need to test your hypothesis to see what is actually causing the interaction sequence to go the way it is going. And while Talakeal did say they "asked the players explicitly" and got a non-answer, I don't agree that what he asked was explicit enough.

If you want to test the hypothesis "do the players know/remember that the formians are going to attack the woods", you need to ask them a question that answers that. Asking "what are the formians planning" does not answer that, because the PCs could know the information but be intentionally withholding it from the other NPCs *or* they could not know/remember it in the first place, and that question doesn't allow us to determine which is the case.

The question/test must include the phrase "formians attacking the woods" at the very least to be "explicit". What Talakeal actually asked meets the definition of "vague" (I'd also argue that he was being cagey as well, but that's just me).

Where do you draw the line between "helping" and "railroading" though?

If the GM is always willing to break character to show the players the "optimal" path, that really sounds like a bad railroad to me.

Your scenario is already a railroad. You've just turned off the lights and forced the players to stumble around in the dark looking for the railcar before they can get on it and proceed down the tracks.

Your own statements have said that the only way the PCs can deal with the werewolves and formians (and whatever other factions are causing them problems) is to get help from the Seelie, and an aliance of factions to help at that. You've also clearly established that the mere actions of the bad guys in the tenement where the PCs are working/living/whatever (details missing? Whatever) isn't enough to make this happen, but the planned attack by the same evil guys on some other faction's operations in the woods will. You have facilitated this by having the PCs capture and interrogate a werewolf and provide them with the information that the evil plot in the tenement is a lead up and preparation for an attack on those very woods.

They must question the werewolf to get this information. They must then pass that information on to the correct faction/whomever among the Seelie to get assistance. This may be a minor bit of railroading (most adventures will have similar types of things in them), but it's still technically a bit of rail track laid out there. If you want the adventure to progress (or at least the part where the PCs save the folks in the tenement), then you must make sure they get through those two steps. Or not. Up to you. But clearly you seemed to have hinged a fair bit of the adventure on them doing that, to the point where them failing to do so "baffled" you, and them not getting the help they expected "frustrated" them.

Yes. Railroads are bad. But guess what? You're going to sometimes have short bits of rail like this in any adventure. Where they are there, you must make sure the PCs pass to the other side. Ironically, if you do this quickly and seemlessly the players will never think of this as a railroad but just "something that happened". The more you hem and haw and insist on them "figuring it out", the more pissed they're going to be that you put this bottleneck in the adventure and then made them play 20 questions to get through it. Which seems to be what you were stuck on.

You put the track in the scenario. Having done that, you need to make sure they hop on the car and get to the other side. The alternative is to not hinge the Seelie help on that one bit of information in the first place. But you don't seem to have thought of or provided for any alternative means to get to the stage of "defeat the bad guys in the tenement building". So it's "railroad or failure".

As is, the game is going in a different direction that I anticipated, with the players making deals with the fairy underworld to perform acts of goblin-sponsored terrorism, which, while maybe not as happy as a unified crusade to crush evil, is certainly an interesting and unexpected direction for the campaign to go!

And if that's ok with you, then congrats! You have avoided railroading your players. It doesn't seem like that's the happy or desired direction either your or your players wanted to get though.

I think the issue here is that you "anticipated a specific direction", but provided one and only one way for that to happen, then failed to provide sufficient clues or hints to the players for them to figure out how to thread that needle. And yeah, this is going to result in odd and random outcomes occuring. If you're fine with that, then that's great. But if that's not what you want to happen, then the solution is to be much much much more flexible in terms of either different routes to achieving the desired scenario outcome *or* different sets of clues/information to find the one route that will lead to that desired scenario outcome.

Unless you have players who are intentionally failing and making sub-optimal decisions for the sake of drama of course, but as I said above, that is really less of an RPG and more of a collaborative storytelling game.

Nah. My guess is that your players had no clue what they were expected to do there, and you didn't provide them sufficient clues/hints. I get that you *think* you did. But my guess is that if you were to actually ask your players "why didn't you tell them about the planned attack on the woods", the answers would be a mix of "what attack on the woods" and "I didn't think they'd care about the woods, if they didn't seem to care about the city and the tenement building".

I could certainly be wrong. But I doubt it. As you just said, players generally don't intentionally tank their own objectives in a scenario just for drama or fun or randomness or whatever. If they actually wanted to get help with the werewolves and actually knew that telling the Seelie folks about the planned attack on the woods would get them that help, then they would have told them that. So yeah... we kinda have to assume that there's at least one step in that logic chain that they were missing. You clearly thought that they would think to tell them about the attack on the woods. They didn't. Dismissing that as "they were being cagey" is not a terribly useful conclusion IMO.

And what exactly do you think happens then when a game master plays characters and forces that content with, oppose and resist the player characters? What exactly do you think players are doing when contending with characters and forces made to oppose and resist them?

They are "playing the characters". I think you are maybe not getting the difference between a player and a character?

In a TTRPG the GM "plays the NPCs" and the players "play the PCs". The NPCs may be adversaries of the PCs, but that does not mean that the GM is the adversary of the players. The GM is (sometimes) roleplaying the adversaries of the characters the players are roleplaying. That's not remotely the same as the GM actually being adversarial to the players (or their characters, for that matter).

This continues to be false. Again, we can replace the game master with a Chess player suggesting horribly lopsided board set-ups. The fact that they can do that doesn't mean that it is in their best interest, since any victory gained so is hollow. They get more, and more meaningful, gameplay by agreeing to a fairer match-up. "Give the (other) player(s) a reasonable chance of success" isn't an advice that's limited to non-adversarial games, to the contrary, adversarial games live by it. That's the reason why classic strategy games such as Chess strive for equal play power at the start of the game. Similarly, you seem to think trust isn't a factor in adversarial games, but it absolutely is. There is no meaning to an adversarial game without players being able to trust the other to follow rules of engagement.

You think the game master isn't an adversary, because you don't understand the reason why an adversary would self-limit to particular rules.

Right. But those are not elements of "being an adversary". Those are cases in which you are putting some other factor ahead of being adversarial. The master chess player is setting aside his own desire to win, or order to teach a less skilled player. The chess master is not acting as an adversary when doing that. He's acting as a teacher. If his entire objective was to win, he would not do that at all. He'd play to his best advantage, using whatever he had available, so as to maximize his ability to defeat his opponent.

I think you are blending multiple concepts here and trying to port them into one where it doesn't fit. One can (arguably should) balance their adversarial nature with a generous nature or "fairness" even. But that does not makes those other things components of being an adversary. Those are things you choose to do in spite of being an adversary.

And no. Being a GM in a RPG is *not* an adversarial role. Not even close. I suspect we're running into a terminology issue here though.

That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

Perfect information would be if your opponent told you, in advance, what moves he was planning and how he would react to each of your moves before he made them.

But then your example wasn't "perfect information" either. You spoke of monster stats, location, and weaknesses and said that this would make combat a breeze. But, that's information that's alagous to knowing the board layout, the positions of each piece, and the moves each piece can perform in chess. That does not tell us what the opposing player is going to do with their pieces though, in the same way the PCs don't know what tactics and moves the monster (with otherwise known stats) is going to do either.

So to whatever degree the "known chess board and rules" is not perfect information, then neither is "known monster, stats, location, and weaknesses". Label it as you wish, but those are similar in terms of "what is known to be" versus "what is known to happen with the things that are known to be". Choice is always a factor here.

And sure. We could argue that the options available in a chess match are more variable than those on a RPG battlemat. But not that much. I'm pretty sure I could take two identical sets of monsters and run them in radically different ways (even just in a straight up combat) and the resulting difficulty for the PCs will also be significantly different as well.


And... heck. I've lost track of what this particular tangent bit was about. I think the broad point was that you need not be afraid of giving players more information in the game, out of fear that this will somehow result in a "single optimal solution" (and perhaps make them feel railroaded). As long as the players get to decide what to do about the infomation they are given, this should never be a problem. The "one optimal solution" is rarely so obvious, or single, or optimal as you may think.

[Kish]

The "one optimal solution" is rarely so obvious, or single, or optimal as you may think.

That is, unless the GM is actually planning only one solution. It's appropriate to plan for "if they do A X will happen. If they do B Y will happen. If they do C Z will happen." Much less appropriate to plan for, "After they solve this problem by doing A..."

[Telok]

Implying it? I'm outright stating it. Statistically it has to hold true for some fraction of players. Some of those three-year-olds grow up to fifteen-year-olds and then forty-year-olds who still pull wings off flies for fun. Some

Well if you're intentionally being insulting then there's no point reading your posts is there?


Back on topic: I think maybe some of it could be driven by many major game systems & adventures priming players to expect ever escalating levels of opposition, combined with increasing feelings of loss adversion. Not saying that's what happened to Tak most recently, but more generally as a trend. The 800 lb. D&D gorilla runs normally from punching gobbo & village saving to punching demigods & world/universe saving. Along the way characters go from cheap junk gear to having more wearable wealth than many D&D setting nations are worth. Which is fine in a "continually raise the combat stakes & combat power level" game style, but less so in practically every other style. And it feels like many players absorb that paradigm then apply it to everything in every other game. Resulting in having NPCs get treated as combat encounter monsters that are just around to get squished, except when they aren't and the players... I dunno, not sure that was making much sense.

[Batcathat]

As for "an easier game is objectively worse" well... that depends on a lot of factors. But I will say that I doubt many players would enjoy a game where the GM simply listed out the steps necessary to achieve all of their goals and I am pretty sure the vast majority of them would complain that it was a massive railroad.

While I agree that being told exactly what was necessary to complete the adventure would be pretty boring, I don't think it's railroading how most people understand the term.

If the players have do do exactly X to succeed, then it's pretty railroady regardless of whether the GM tells them this or not. If they can do X, Y, Z, Å, Ä or Ö to succeed, then it's not very railroady whether the GM tells them this or not.

[GloatingSwine]

Gee, just like Kenku in D&D 5e, this character class/race is set up for grief play, when the core means of playing a TRGPG is verbal/oral communication. This is designed as an explicit obstacle to play.
Or you just have a grief player.
Maybe at your tables.

Oh it's worse than that. A Pooka has to pass a willpower test to tell the whole truth for five minutes, and if you botch the roll the storyteller gives you a lie you have to sell as hard as you can.

They can speak in partial truths or indirectly, but in general must always be trying to misdirect and instil doubt in the listener. It might be interesting to try and adapt Kyoto-ken to playing one. (Traditionally people in Kyoto speak very indirectly and very often the actual words, delivered with polite sincerity, have the exact opposite meaning to the intent, eg. "Your children are so lively" actually means "Your children are loud and annoying".)

If a Pooka wants another character to do or believe something, they're better off trying to make them doubt the truth of the opposite.

[King of Nowhere]

And what exactly do you think happens then when a game master plays characters and forces that content with, oppose and resist the player characters? What exactly do you think players are doing when contending with characters and forces made to oppose and resist them?

Or, you have an erroneous idea of how adversarial games are run and designed. Again:

You believe the way you do. I disagree. I see no point to further discussion. We have both stated our position.

this is just semantics. you both know what d&d entails, you are disagreeing on the meaning of the word "adversarial". i can see both arguments being made, because "i will make a challenge that you can defeat if you don't do anything too stupid, but within the boundaries of that challenge i will try to defeat you fairly" is a complex concept that i don't think has a specific word apply to it.

We both know that if the players have perfect information, the experience of playing the game is going to be vastly different than one in which they are limited to what their character knows. yes
We both know that if the players know where all the treasure hidden they are going to get more rewards than if they don't. yes
We both know that if the players know where all the traps are and how to bypass them, they are going to take less damage. yes
We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort. true for most modules, try tomb of horror
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze. no
We both know that if the players know all of the NPC's secrets and motivations, social challenges and mysteries will be a breeze. no

no, some of those are not the same as the others. if you are put in an enclosure with the tarrasque at level 1, you have perfect information, you die regardless. sure, it's easier to fight with perfect information on your opponent. but it's still a tactical challenge, and not one with a foregone conclusion.

That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

But I actually think a game of Chess with full information would be a lot like an RPG in the fact that it would, essentially, be your opponent playing both sides and "railroading" you to victory by pointing out every mistake you are about to make before you make it.

what's that supposed to mean? that's not what "perfect information" means. perfect information in a game of chess includes the fact that your opponent may play all possible moves. you can make predictions on the fact that your opponent will try to play good moves, but that's only a practical way to reduce calculations. knowing what your opponent is going to move and what mistakes he's going to make is nothing like perfect information; it's more akin to playing against a bot, and a very stupid one.
besides, the very fact that dice is involved limits your perfect information.
you are very prone to making those kind of absolutist statements that have no bearing on the actual reality of things. you should try to be more nuanced with your absolutistic statements.

Like, take Stockfish or AlphaGo or whatever, and say you have full access to that software and hardware to independently run it. You can see its 'thought process', all the branches of moves it considers, its relative probability of choosing each move, even ask it to play out theoretical continuations, and use all of that information in deciding what move you want to make. You're in timed games - say 3 hours per game, not too strict but enough you can't just take forever. I will bet that you still wouldn't be able to win more than 70% of the time in a 20 game series. If the computer always gets to go first, then unless you're a professional player I don't think you'll win even 1 game, even with access to the entire thought process and the ability so simulate the opponent and all of that.

weird that you know stockfish, but you don't know the current reality of how strong computers are at chess.
if you are a professional, you lose. period. if we staged a match between the world champion and a pc, the only question would be whether magnus carlssen would be able to draw one game out of a dozen. winning is completely out of the question. it doesn't matter if you know the code, you can't use it to draw any useful conclusion. the best thing you can do with it is to run the computer against itself, in which case you get 50% odds. humans can no longer make a meaningful contribution there - except perhaps recognizing some fortress configurations, we haven't managed to teach the ai to do that yet. but it's very rare that they come up.

That is, unless the GM is actually planning only one solution. It's appropriate to plan for "if they do A X will happen. If they do B Y will happen. If they do C Z will happen." Much less appropriate to plan for, "After they solve this problem by doing A..."

right, good point. if the players have perfect information, they will breeze the campaign - provided that the dm has already decided how the campaign should go, and is making them stumble to find that solution. which actually seem to be the case here.

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree that there is ever adversarial relationship between the GM and the players (at least, there shouldn't be).

And since I didn't say that there was - the role play is In Character but during "the moment" it can sometimes feel adversarial OOC depending on how immersive the scene is - you are making no point. And in my experience, that "in the moment" feel is often the result of good role play, but sometimes it can be a DM/GM leaning into the role really hard. How that is received varies from player to player.

And in the next scene the DM/GM plays another role...

Again: the GM/DM plays the role of some of the adversaries. It comes with the badge.

For Talakeal:
Yes, DM/GM can be a tightrope walk. Embrace it.

[NichG]

weird that you know stockfish, but you don't know the current reality of how strong computers are at chess.
if you are a professional, you lose. period. if we staged a match between the world champion and a pc, the only question would be whether magnus carlssen would be able to draw one game out of a dozen. winning is completely out of the question. it doesn't matter if you know the code, you can't use it to draw any useful conclusion. the best thing you can do with it is to run the computer against itself, in which case you get 50% odds. humans can no longer make a meaningful contribution there - except perhaps recognizing some fortress configurations, we haven't managed to teach the ai to do that yet. but it's very rare that they come up.

Yeah it's possible that in Chess you can't even chimera anymore. I think in Go, a professional can still chimera with AlphaGo or AlphaZero or whatever.

I'm curious, will Stockfish with 1 minute per move time settings reliably beat Stockfish with 1 second per move time settings? If so, a professional could possibly boost their Stockfish instance by identifying moves that need more or less time, since a tree search will at best be using heuristics for that.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm curious, will Stockfish with 1 minute per move time settings reliably beat Stockfish with 1 second per move time settings? If so, a professional could possibly boost their Stockfish instance by identifying moves that need more or less time, since a tree search will at best be using heuristics for that.

i'm not enough of an expert, but that may be possible.

[Quertus]

It explains why they won't offer the fey anything for their assistance and insist they have nothing to give, but simply answering a request to share information isn't going to taken as a promise even with the trickiest of fey (unless I suppose the players decide to add unnecessary figures of speech like "I'll eat my hat if this information isn't correct!" or "I know this is true, I stake my life on it!").

It explains why they would be in a mode to communicate as minimally as possible. As there is (per your OP) no reason known to them to communicate information regarding Muir Woods, they won't.

So, if you want to change this, this gives you 2 options: make it obvious to the players that necessary information is actually necessary, or remove the impediment to communication (or, better yet, replace it with a positive incentive to communication).

The others appear to be claims about the necessity of obfuscation, but that one's just: modules are too easy.

I disagree. I think you would discover, if you asked and didn't immediately go "I don't believe you," that "modules are too easy" is a minority opinion, not the universally-acknowledged fact you're claiming it to be. And while I'm not seeing the relevance to anything concrete that's been brought up in this thread, I do see the relevance to the underlying problem: you run games which are harder than your players want them to be, and deal with that information by digging your heels in and declaring that easier games would be objectively worse.

Talakeal, historically, places too much emphasis on the "Challenge" aesthetic, to the extent that he isn't having fun unless his players think his game is too hard. So it's not surprising to be able to evaluate a statement as, "modules are too easy".

[Vahnavoi]

I am not sure if you are trying to pull a nirvana fallacy or just trying to get in a cheap insult, but either way it is silly.

Or, third option, there are math problems that are too hard for you or your players to solve optimally, math problems which can be used to make a roleplaying game.

We both know that if the players have perfect information, the experience of playing the game is going to be vastly different than one in which they are limited to what their character knows.

Sure, the experience is different. "Experience is different" is not equal to "trivially soluble" nor to "players will always play optimally".

We both know that, barring profound bad luck or stupidity, the players are going to succeed at whatever goals the module sets before them with minimum risk or effort.

No, we don't know that. You are suffering from a failure of imagination: you are thinking of a module that is ONLY difficult because of hidden information, and becomes trivially soluble with perfect information. You are then using that to conclude that perfect information would make any module trivial. That doesn't fly. The design space for modules, or game scenarios really, is open-ended. You said perfect information makes a game into a math problem, but forgot that math problems range from "can be understood and solved by 1st grader" to "makes professional mathematicians cry".

We both know that if the players know where all the treasure hidden they are going to get more rewards than if they don't.
We both know that if the players know where all the traps are and how to bypass them, they are going to take less damage.
We both know that if the players know all the monster's stats and locations and weaknesses, combat will be a breeze.
We both know that if the players know all of the NPC's secrets and motivations, social challenges and mysteries will be a breeze.

These all posit a comparison between the same scenario played with and without perfect information. All of these claims fail in the same way: the answers aren't, and cannot be, actually known without specifying a scenario. They also all illustrate that you fail to understand the argument:

Taking less damage, finding more treasure, having easier fights or solving more mysteries, none of these are "optimal". "Optimal" refers to the most favorable, or the set of most favorable, strategies. A perfectly informed strategy can have all kinds of improvements over a less-informed strategy and still fail to be optimal. Because, you see, even knowing all those things, one still has to crunch the path for obtaining those treasures, meaning Travelling Salesman Problem says hello again. How much time - real time - do you actually hand your players to plot an algorithm and calculate permutations?

Now, sure, one can make a super difficult scenario that is still challenging even with perfect information, but it wouldn't play like a traditional scenario, and would have to be so difficult that any player who did try and go in blind and play it in the traditional way is almost certain to fail.

This is just baseless supposition on your part. You don't know how a hidden information versus perfect information variants of the same scenario play without analyzing specific scenarios. You also cannot say anything useful this way about scenarios made to be played with perfect information from the get-go. Sure, they might play differently... in what way exactly? Again, the design space is open-ended. Such games can be anything.

For a concrete example, you can actually go play Fog-of-war Chess and compare your experience to playing normal Chess. Does the experience differ? Yes. Are there strategies that are decent in the former but weak or pointless in the latter? Definitely. Are they so radically different that a player who enjoys one, would not be able to play and enjoy the other? No, not really.

That’s not perfect information though. Your opponent is a complete blank.

Perfect information would be if your opponent told you, in advance, what moves he was planning and how he would react to each of your moves before he made them.

Wrong.

In a deterministic perfect information game, your opponent is not a blank - you have all necessary knowledge to, in theory, calculate every possible move they could make, and every possible counter. An optimal strategy would include all that information in itself. Here is an example of how it's done for Tic-tac-toe. You won't find one for Chess, because one cannot, in practice, be calculated.

If you need the opposing player to reveal what they are doing beforehand in a perfect information games, that's an admission that you cannot actually process all the information in the game to acquire optimal strategy.

Really, it would seem to me you don't know the difference and cannot distinguish between a game having perfect information and a gamemaster handing out a solution. I say the former, you think of the latter - with various corollaries, such as you not realizing that game master might not know the optimal solution to their own game, or that players might be able to win with sub-optimal strategies because the game master is playing sub-optimally without realizing it.

[Talakeal]

Is it any wonder that I am extra cautious about taking actions that feel like railroading to me? This entire post is written presupposing that I must be running a railroad, based on nothing I actually said.

You either need to drop into OOC communication and (as the GM) ask the players "Do you intend to tell the Seelie about the planned attack in the woods?", or if you really really really want/need to avoid that (which I don't consider metagaming at all, but whatever), then you need to have a "helper NPC" do the work for you. Have some NPC offer to assist the PCs with their interaction with the various factions/folks there. Have that NPC tell them "So. I talked to <factionA> and have discovered that they seem to have a significant interest in the Muir Woods. Perhaps if you have some information which may assist their operations there, they may be willing to assist you in turn". Basically hint the heck out of things to them. And honestly? If hinting fails, then just outright remind them (as the GM) that they know about this planned attack on the woods, and that information might just get them to help, where the mere presence of these werewolves in a tenement building will not.

What's wrong with allowing for the possibility of failure? To me, this is the social equivalent of fudging the dice so the players never lose a fight.

Also, this would require them letting the helper NPC in on their plans, which, as evasive as they were being, I just don't see happening.

I'll ask again: Did you straight up ask them (as the GM): "Do you tell them about the planned attack on the woods?". If you didn't do this, then you do not know if they withheld that information because they chose to withhold it, or they just plain didn't remember it, or didn't think it was relevant. There's a progresssion here. You give the players time to come up with stuff on their own. Then you use the NPC dialogue to hint at what they could do. Then be even more direct with the NPCs. But yeah, at some point, when it becomes clear that the PCs are not using some key piece of inforamtion, you as the GM need to drop out of character and just ask them directly. Otherewise, you'll never know if this is by intention, or accident.

Avoiding this out of a desire to "not metagame" is not a good approach IMO. You're going to have a lot more OOC conversations (mostly angry ones) as a result of not doing this sort of thing when it's appropriate to do so.

We were talking in character. I didn't need to ask "do you tell them about the attack on Muir Woods," because I know they didn't. Just like I don't need to ask you if you brought up the Jabberwocky in your post, I know you didn't because I just read it.

Now, as for asking them "why" they didn't bring it up, that is something I didn't do until the scene was over. Because asking them is RPG equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; the players will become preoccupied with that bit of data, and the organic conversation is destroyed. They will either assume "this is the right answer, the GM is trying to railroad us," or "this is a trap, the GM is trying to bait us," and in either case the other purposes of the scene; making NPC contacts, learning about Seelie society, and simply having fun RPing with colorful characters, will be forgotten and tossed by the wayside as it all boils down to the one all important question.

You've repeated the same sequence multiple times. But I still don't have the answer to the question: Did the players intentionally avoid telling the NPCs about the planned attack on the woods, or did they forget (or not know? Or not realize it was signficiant? etc). You will only ever know this if you ask them. And there is no harm in asking. If the players are supposed to already know about the attack, then asking them "do you tell them about the attack" provides zero additional information to the players. But if they've forgotten about it, then this will jog their memory and will help "unstick" the game.

The players claimed they didn't think it was significant.

They also said they were confused because they thought Caer (the Changeling word for castle) and Caern (the werewolf word for a holy place) were the same thing. Although this actually confuses me more, because if they thought the changelings were talking about the Werewolf caern, they should have been more likely to bring up the impending attack, not less.


However, it is also possible they were simply on zoned out on their phones not paying attention and forgot, and won't admit it. I have had problems with that in the past, so it is impossible to know for sure.

Continuing to ask (as the NPCs) "what are the formians planning" over and over, despite the PCs never giving the "right answer", is like the GM asking "are you sure you want to do that?" when the player says their character will do something the GM knows is a bad idea. Ask the correct/direct question.

What are the fomorians planning *is* a direct question.

"Are you sure you want to do that?" Is just a polite way of saying "You are an idiot, don't do that."

These are not the same thing.

They must question the werewolf to get this information.

Again, this is false, and I never said this. There were a thousand ways to get the information, or to proceed with the scenario without learning the information. The idea to interrogate the werewolf was the player's, as was the method by which they extracted it.

They must then pass that information on to the correct faction/whomever among the Seelie to get assistance.

The players chose to talk the Seelie into helping them. In my opinion, the easiest way to do this was to make those tasked with defending Muir Woods aware of the impending attack. But the players could have come up with a better plan I didn't think of, or they could have made a worse plan work. Hell... if they hadn't flubbed their persuasion roll their initial plan of convincing the Seelie to attack the formorians "because they are there" could have yielded results despite it being, imo, a plan that was likely doomed to failure.

Your scenario is already a railroad. You've just turned off the lights and forced the players to stumble around in the dark looking for the railcar before they can get on it and proceed down the tracks.

Your own statements have said that the only way the PCs can deal with the werewolves and formians (and whatever other factions are causing them problems) is to get help from the Seelie, and an aliance of factions to help at that. You've also clearly established that the mere actions of the bad guys in the tenement where the PCs are working/living/whatever (details missing? Whatever) isn't enough to make this happen, but the planned attack by the same evil guys on some other faction's operations in the woods will. You have facilitated this by having the PCs capture and interrogate a werewolf and provide them with the information that the evil plot in the tenement is a lead up and preparation for an attack on those very woods.

They must question the werewolf to get this information. They must then pass that information on to the correct faction/whomever among the Seelie to get assistance. This may be a minor bit of railroading (most adventures will have similar types of things in them), but it's still technically a bit of rail track laid out there. If you want the adventure to progress (or at least the part where the PCs save the folks in the tenement), then you must make sure they get through those two steps. Or not. Up to you. But clearly you seemed to have hinged a fair bit of the adventure on them doing that, to the point where them failing to do so "baffled" you, and them not getting the help they expected "frustrated" them.

This is not true.

Again, you are presupposing a railroad based on nothing.

I didn't say "the only way the PCs can deal with the werewolves and formians (and whatever other factions are causing them problems) is to get help from the Seelie, and an aliance of factions to help at that". I said that no one faction is strong enough to beat the werewolves in combat in a fair fight (and attacking them in their lair almost garuntees the fight will be unfair in their favor).

I did not say the Seelie had to be involved. I did not say that the werewolves coundn't be beaten outside of combat. I didn't say beating the werewolves was neccesary for the scenario. Heck, I didn't think it needed to be said, but obviously it is possible for the underdog to win due to an unconventional plan or outlandish dice rolls, or a thousand other weird things, nor did I say it was impossible to enlist help from a faction that isn't currently involved.

You are assuming all of this. And assuming incorrectly.

You put the track in the scenario. Having done that, you need to make sure they hop on the car and get to the other side. The alternative is to not hinge the Seelie help on that one bit of information in the first place. But you don't seem to have thought of or provided for any alternative means to get to the stage of "defeat the bad guys in the tenement building". So it's "railroad or failure".

Again, this is just flat out wrong.

But, deeper down, this is a weird way of looking at it.

You seem to be saying that it is the GM's job to provide alternate solutions. Is that correct?

So in your opinion, a game where the GM doesn't have anything in mind and leaves it entirely up to the players to come up with a solution is *more* of a railroad than one in which the GM lays out several paths before the PCs and forces them to choose one?

The more you hem and haw and insist on them "figuring it out", the more pissed they're going to be that you put this bottleneck in the adventure and then made them play 20 questions to get through it. Which seems to be what you were stuck on.

It wasn't the PCs playing 20 questions. It was one question. And the NPC's were the ones playing the game, all the PCs had to do was answer. Likewise, the players are the ones who are "hemming and hawwing" not me. I am asking very direct clear questions, the players are the ones who are refusing to give a direct answer.


But again, on a broader level, that's interesting.

IMO, players get frustrated when they fail. But they also get frustrated if they feel the GM is leading by the nose.

So, as a compromise, I tend to give hints and second chances if they are barking up the wrong tree rather than just telling them they fail and moving on to the next scene. Are you saying this is a bad thing?

Because yeah, I guess in retrospect it does tend to backfire quite often, as it wastes time and my players often perceive it as rubbing their stupidity in their face.

I think the issue here is that you "anticipated a specific direction", but provided one and only one way for that to happen, then failed to provide sufficient clues or hints to the players for them to figure out how to thread that needle. And yeah, this is going to result in odd and random outcomes occuring. If you're fine with that, then that's great. But if that's not what you want to happen, then the solution is to be much much much more flexible in terms of either different routes to achieving the desired scenario outcome *or* different sets of clues/information to find the one route that will lead to that desired scenario outcome.


Nah. My guess is that your players had no clue what they were expected to do there, and you didn't provide them sufficient clues/hints. I get that you *think* you did. But my guess is that if you were to actually ask your players "why didn't you tell them about the planned attack on the woods", the answers would be a mix of "what attack on the woods" and "I didn't think they'd care about the woods, if they didn't seem to care about the city and the tenement building".

Again though, there was no clues and hints or puzzle solving or mysteries or specific directions here.

In the previous scene, they had asked the werewolf "What is your plan?" and she told them "We are going to create an army of fomorians, use them to attack the werewolves in Muir woods, and then release the Cataclysm."

In this scene, the players were asked by about half a dozen different Seelie "What are the werewolves planning?".

This could not be any more straightforward. All that is required is that when they are asked a direct question, they mindlessly regurgitate the information that was given to them when they asked the exact same question in the previous scene.

If the players have do do exactly X to succeed, then it's pretty railroady regardless of whether the GM tells them this or not. If they can do X, Y, Z, Å, Ä or Ö to succeed, then it's not very railroady whether the GM tells them this or not.

But if one path is easier, why would the players not take it? Why would they deliberately choose a sub-optimal path?

For example, if I tell them where the switch to disable the trap is, why would the players attempt a risky or potentially failure prone way to bypass or disarm it even if it is possible?
If I tell the players there are trolls in room 3a and a troll-bane sword in room 4c, why would they ever try and defeat the trolls without grabbing the sword first?
If you tell them there is a treasure hidden behind the bookshelf, why would the players ever avoid picking it up?

Or, in my specific case, why would they ever decide to go ask random fairy knights to go on a crusade or unseelie goblins to blow up a building when they know there is a fey baron whose job it is to defend muir woods?

no, some of those are not the same as the others. if you are put in an enclosure with the tarrasque at level 1, you have perfect information, you die regardless. sure, it's easier to fight with perfect information on your opponent.

Hence the next paragraph where I said it is possible to make a scenario so difficult that perfect information may not help, but such a scenario would be grossly unfair if someone went in blind. I think level 1 trapped with a tarrasque certainly counts!

but it's still a tactical challenge, and not one with a foregone conclusion.

If the fight is still a challenge after being told everything about the encounter and being told what the optimal tactics are as the GM sees them, then I would argue that it wouldn't be a fair challenge going in blind. And, in such a case, the optimal tactics are probably to avoid the encounter entirely!

what's that supposed to mean? that's not what "perfect information" means. perfect information in a game of chess includes the fact that your opponent may play all possible moves. you can make predictions on the fact that your opponent will try to play good moves, but that's only a practical way to reduce calculations. knowing what your opponent is going to move and what mistakes he's going to make is nothing like perfect information; it's more akin to playing against a bot, and a very stupid one.

Remember, the original suggestion was that I tell the players what they need to say to the NPCs to get the NPCs to do what they want them to do.

Saying "your opponent may play all possible moves" is not equivalent.

besides, the very fact that dice is involved limits your perfect information.

Yep. Hence the caveat about bad lack in my post.

Of course, most problems have solutions that don't involve dice rolls at all, hence the old school idiom "if you are rolling the dice, you have already failed."

you are very prone to making those kind of absolutist statements that have no bearing on the actual reality of things. you should try to be more nuanced with your absolutistic statements.

I am responding to an absurd statement with an absurd statement, yes.

Let me restate my point more simply without examples or hyperbole:

Some approaches to problems are vastly more efficient than other approaches. If the GM simply tells the players which approach is most efficient, the players would be fools not to take that approach, rendering all other approaches moot. To me, this is railroading, as you are effectively taking all other approaches off the table.

Vahnovoi then objected to me using the term "optimal" because, afaict, players and GM's aren't smart enough to know which path is literally the best possible path out of all permutations.

Talakeal, the games I listed *are* RPGs!

They're cRPGs, because the sort of literal perfect information you're talking about is objectively possible for those, whereas for anything at a table it'd be 'well maybe the GM didn't tell you everything' or whatever and we could argue in circles forever. But those games are based off of tabletop RPG rulesets, the combats run more or less like tabletop combats can run (certainly not like theatre of the mind groups, or groups with heavy improvised actions, but RAW and minis groups its basically the same stuff).

cRPGs are vastly different from tabletop RPGs.

First of all, they can't account for out of the box thinking. You can never kidnap the bosses family for leverage, or borrow a magic item from a friend in a neighboring kingdom, or tunnel directly into the treasure room bypassing the rest of the dungeon, or any of the countless other things you could do in a traditional RPG module with perfect information.

Second, they aren't fair fights to begin with. Tabletop RPG modules are written with the expectation of a fair challenge going in blind. RPGs aren't, because you are expected to play them over and over again until you get them right. Hardcore mode with considered to be a challenge for advanced players, not the expectation for noobies!

Third, most computer RPGs have a large degree of manual dexterity involved, which bypasses a lot of the knowledge requirements.

That being said, although I am sure there are some out there, I have yet to play a computer RPG that I can't utterly trivialize after multiple playthroughs.

Your opponent is only going to be able to tell you about the moves they see, and generally speaking in chess you aren't going to make a move if you see an obvious response to it. So the natural consequence of both players sharing total information about their thought process with each-other is that the game is decided by the consequences that neither player initially notices, but which become relevant later after the player who is helped or harmed by it has already committed. You can play by e.g. always just doing what your opponent tells you they would do in your situation, but at best you're going to tie and probably you're going to lose more than half the time if you do that because the opponent is taking moves where they wouldn't be thrilled to play any of the available responses.

Woah, hold on. Perfect information only goes one way. It is impossible to have a game where both sides have perfect information. Best case scenario, attempting it ends up with a Princess Bride style"I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know...." loop and nobody ever actually makes a move.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

They also said they were confused because they thought Caer (the Changeling word for castle) and Caern (the werewolf word for a holy place) were the same thing. Although this actually confuses me more, because if they thought the changelings were talking about the Werewolf caern, they should have been more likely to bring up the impending attack, not less.


However, it is also possible they were simply on zoned out on their phones not paying attention and forgot, and won't admit it. I have had problems with that in the past, so it is impossible to know for sure.

I think if this was an issue at my table I'd probably think about radically simplifying and not including cant and language in ways that can cause confusion. When I've seen games devolve into people staring at their phones it's often because something is happening deep in the weeds that someone (or multiple someones) just doesn't care about.

Again though, there was no clues and hints or puzzle solving or mysteries or specific directions here.

In the previous scene, they had asked the werewolf "What is your plan?" and she told them "We are going to create an army of fomorians, use them to attack the werewolves in Muir woods, and then release the Cataclysm."

In this scene, the players were asked by about half a dozen different Seelie "What are the werewolves planning?".

This could not be any more straightforward. All that is required is that when they are asked a direct question, they mindlessly regurgitate the information that was given to them when they asked the exact same question in the previous scene.

So... in character, have you given them a reason to not trust the seelie as a group? Out of character, have they been taught that the GM's running of the world isn't trustworthy? Because clearly there's something incentivizing this behavior.