Players characters evading direct questions

[Talakeal]

In short, does anyone have a problem with the game stalling out because the player's refuse to give direct answers to an NPCs questions?

I am currently running a Werewolf the Apocalypse / Changeling the Dreaming crossover game. Last night, the players had learned that the fomorians were planning an attack on the werewolves in Muir Woods, and were at a changeling ball trying to recruit allies. Unbenownst to the players, the Changelings also have a Freehold in Muir Woods, and would be very interested in stopping such an attack if they new about it. But every time the players asked a changeling for help, they refused to actually tell them what the Fomorians were planning, instead just saying vague things like "they are evil and in the city and are up to no good". Even though half a dozen changeling NPCs asked them directly what the fomorians were planning.

Afterward, the players walked away empty handed, and then got frustrated OOC that none of the Changelings were helpful.

This is far from the first time this has happened in my group, the players want help from an NPC, but just won't give the NPC a direct answer to their question, which basically puts the GM in the position of metagaming or stalling the plot. And its not just my group, I have noticed it in other groups as well. I remember one time I was playing in a D&D game where a warlock directly asked his patron for help, but he refused to actually tell her what the bad guys were up to, and she ended up getting so frustrated with his evasive attitude that she dragged him to hell to torture the answers out of him.

I am not great at reading people, so I am not sure why players even do this. My best guess is that either the players aren't actually paying attention to the plot and don't remember the specific details, but are too embarrassed to actually say that, or that the players are so afraid of betrayal by the NPCs that they treat everyone as if they were on a need to know basis. But those are just theories.

Anyone have any advice on how to handle this situation, or even any insight on why it keeps coming up?

[NichG]

In general: the usual thing of don't have a single line of play through which the 'plot' must proceed, and don't approach scenarios with a mindset about what's supposed to happen such that you feel that something went wrong when those things don't happen. That way 'we wanted to get these guys to be allies, but we couldn't convince them' doesn't stall the plot. It just means that now when the attack happens, there's no Changeling assistance, and game continues. If players feel it's unfair, be very direct and explicit about what they would have had to do (not framed as 'what mistake you made' but framed as 'this is the deal: they get info, you get allies') and even retcon and let them try again.

Why would a player reasonably want to be cagey? Maybe they think there could be a Fomorian spy in the room, maybe they understand that when talking to fae or fae-associated things specific wordings can get you in trouble and don't want to be caught in some binding or some technical lie or whatever, maybe they even think that if they just give the information they're losing any leverage they could use to negotiate.

Here's the thing though, knowing when to be cagey and when to be trusting isn't just an in-character thing - its about knowing the GM. I've had GMs where I'll play a character who puts their head on the metaphorical chopping block by asking an efreet 'oh, just grant me whatever wish you think I'd like', and where if I saw an encroaching group of zombies I would consider opening up with a handshake and a verbal parley because they'd just love the absurdity of it actually working and run with it. I've also had GMs I absolutely would never do that with because they're all about their own common sense and punishing deviations from it.

And that means that, in your specific case, if these are the players you've been having problems with for decades then this isn't something you can understand in the abstract about 'players in general' and fix or adjust. Because what you're seeing is likely a continuation of your ongoing table dynamic issues that periodically cause you problems - maybe this is a power play kind of thing, or you've got a player looking to provoke you into doing something wrong so they can attack you over it, or a player who was burned by something you did 10 years ago and expects you to screw them over if they give you anything at all (or even had that experience from a different GM and imported that bias to their interactions with you) or ... Generalizations aren't going to help there, its going to be down to your specific relationships with each of those specific people.

[Unoriginal]

In short, does anyone have a problem with the game stalling out because the player's refuse to give direct answers to an NPCs questions?

I am currently running a Werewolf the Apocalypse / Changeling the Dreaming crossover game. Last night, the players had learned that the fomorians were planning an attack on the werewolves in Muir Woods, and were at a changeling ball trying to recruit allies. Unbenownst to the players, the Changelings also have a Freehold in Muir Woods, and would be very interested in stopping such an attack if they new about it. But every time the players asked a changeling for help, they refused to actually tell them what the Fomorians were planning, instead just saying vague things like "they are evil and in the city and are up to no good". Even though half a dozen changeling NPCs asked them directly what the fomorians were planning.

Afterward, the players walked away empty handed, and then got frustrated OOC that none of the Changelings were helpful.

This is far from the first time this has happened in my group, the players want help from an NPC, but just won't give the NPC a direct answer to their question, which basically puts the GM in the position of metagaming or stalling the plot. And its not just my group, I have noticed it in other groups as well. I remember one time I was playing in a D&D game where a warlock directly asked his patron for help, but he refused to actually tell her what the bad guys were up to, and she ended up getting so frustrated with his evasive attitude that she dragged him to hell to torture the answers out of him.

I am not great at reading people, so I am not sure why players even do this. My best guess is that either the players aren't actually paying attention to the plot and don't remember the specific details, but are too embarrassed to actually say that, or that the players are so afraid of betrayal by the NPCs that they treat everyone as if they were on a need to know basis. But those are just theories.

Anyone have any advice on how to handle this situation, or even any insight on why it keeps coming up?

Why not just ask the players, bluntly, what they are trying to accomplish by not giving the NPCs the info?

Furthermore, I'm not familiar with Werewolf/Changeling, but there are probably a stat or skill or trait that indicates how good a PC is at reading others, right?

If that's the case, as a DM it's worth to look to the PCs who are the best at doing it and state "you can sense that [insert NPC name] won't help unless you give them something concrete to react to" or the like.

And some NPC would just ask them point blank "tell me what's happening if you want my help" of course.

Now if it's a question of the players not remembering what actually went on in enough details, then you can just ask "do you tell them everything or leave something out?" then timeskip over the "PCs explain the situation" part of the conversation.

[Vahnavoi]

I see this kind of behaviour all the time, especially in small kids and adults who didn't grow up. Multiple elements can contribute to it. In no particular order:

1) Fear of failure. The person is afraid of getting the answer wrong, either due to sense of embarrasment or due to possible punishment.

2) Anxious personality. Related to above, the importance of getting the answer right may increase pressure, leading to an anxious person to lock up.

3) Lacking vocabulary. Even if the person knows the answer, they cannot verbalize it. This may lead to roundabout or non-specific answers.

4) They are focusing on tone or emotional state of the asker, not what is being asked.

5) They are focusing too much on motive of the asker, which may lead to giving the answer the asker wants to hear rather than what's true or useful.

6) They plain do not understand the question.

7) Lacking theory of mind. The person being asked doesn't understand other people don't know what they do or don't think in the same way as them.

8) The asker is bad at asking questions. Quite a few rhetorical evasions are just means of calling out that the asker asking an impossible question, a loaded question, has unexplained premises or assumptions, or is just focusing on something irrelevant.

As a group grows in size, probability of a player falling afoul of one or more grows.

What can be done about these? Well:

1) Foster a non-judging atmosphere where even incorrect answers are welcomed. Note: you cannot consistently do this in a game where you are playing antagonist or otherwise doubtful roles.

2) Give anxious players more time to think and answer without rushing them.

3) Short term, you can try to give suggestions, though this can backfire, as it is in a sense mutually exclusive with the prior point. Long term, it can only be fixed by players conversing with more people and reading more texts with diverse vocabularies.

4) You have to watch your tone and ask questions in a way that invites answers. Note again, you cannot consistently do this in a game where you play antagonist or otherwise doubtful roles.

5) You'll have to present yourself as patient, good faith listener, which, again, you cannot consistently do in a game where you play antagonist or otherwise doubtful roles. You may think "but I wasn't playing such a role right then". Maybe, but your players remember when you did and even without much conscious thought weigh the possibility that answering straightly would weaken their position.

6) You literally have to play a simpler game first that would teach them how to form and recognize the sort of questions they have to be answering.

7) First you have to ask and answer yourself a question: are you playing with people who are neurologically atypical or have other psychological issues? If the answer is yes, don't expect getting over this to be easy. Beyond that, consider: you know what the fomorians are doing and the players know you know what the fomorians are doing. You are simply pretending to be someone who doesnt know, possibly unconvincingly, and your players are pretending to answer to someone who doesn't know. There's nothing natural about this and a lot of moving parts to it that can go wrong. Due to hindsight bias, it is difficult to act like you don't know something you already know. It is possible that simultaneously your players underexplain the plan to you since they presume you'll fill in the gaps and you are overcorrecting to play the asking character as more clueless and less helpfull to give the impression that they know less than you do.

8) Think carefully of how, exactly, you are asking. This goes together with points 4) and 5). "What evil plans?" becomes a different question depending on delivery. Make an error, and what was meant to be an honest question will sound like a rhetorical one expressing doubt at the existence of any evil plans.

Finally, people suck at things they don't practice. If a person, in their real life, never has to think and answer questions such as "what is the enemy planning to do?", they won't magically become good at it for a game. Which is why, again, play a simpler game first. Whip out Twenty Questions and practice asking relevant, limited scope questions and deducing information from the answers.

[Mastikator]

I agree with Unoriginal. If the players need to give exact answers to an NPC in order to gain their help and they are just utterly refusing, ask them OOC why they won't tell the changeling that the fomorians are planning an attack on the werewolves in the muir woods.

Another option is bring it up one level of abstraction, instead of the players talking in characters they can just state their intentions and then you narrate how the PCs tell the changelings what the fomorians are planning, and that convinces the changelings to help. Then bring it down again and have the changeling ask in person what the plan is- how the changeling can help, or better yet, the changeling proposes two plans which the players can choose from (they can always choose a third option of their own device, but generally players only surprise the DM when the DM isn't expecting it ).

[GloatingSwine]

Anyone have any advice on how to handle this situation, or even any insight on why it keeps coming up?

You need to communicate your expectations clearly. If your NPCs need more information have them ask specific probing questions intended to elicit that information. And match that to the players' goals as well. The players' goal is to get the Changelings to do something.

In this situation they probably shouldn't be asking about the Fomorians' plan, they should be asking specifically what the players want them to do, and then stating their price for doing it.

[King of Nowhere]

In short, does anyone have a problem with the game stalling out because the player's refuse to give direct answers to an NPCs questions?

no, never

the players want help from an NPC, but just won't give the NPC a direct answer to their question, which basically puts the GM in the position of metagaming or stalling the plot.

the problem is, this should not stall the game or "force the dm to stall the plot". so the players failed to get allies, so what? the game goes on. if you just stop the game until the players succeed in allying with the changelings, you are railroading the game. if you stop the game until the players ally with the changelings by telling them the plan of the fomorians, you are doubly railroading: once because you want the players to ally with the changelings, and once because you want them to do it in a specific way.

i had instances where the players don't trust an npc (though my players tend to be on the trusting side), or otherwise fail to secure allies. the game goes on, simple as that. have the fomorians attack the changelings next session, while the players failed to secure their alliance.

[Kish]

They don't trust. Either they don't trust the NPCs or they don't trust you.

[Talakeal]

And that means that, in your specific case, if these are the players you've been having problems with for decades then this isn't something you can understand in the abstract about 'players in general' and fix or adjust. Because what you're seeing is likely a continuation of your ongoing table dynamic issues that periodically cause you problems - maybe this is a power play kind of thing, or you've got a player looking to provoke you into doing something wrong so they can attack you over it, or a player who was burned by something you did 10 years ago and expects you to screw them over if they give you anything at all (or even had that experience from a different GM and imported that bias to their interactions with you) or ... Generalizations aren't going to help there, its going to be down to your specific relationships with each of those specific people.

I have played in lots of groups, and my main group has cycled through a lot of players over the years, and this is something that I have seen come up again and again, and many times I was not directly involved.

For example, the scenario in my OP about the warlock refusing to answer his patron's questions happened in a game in which I was a player, but I was not the warlock of the GM, and I was not personally involved, nor were any of my long time players.

Heck, I have even noticed this phenomenon come up more than a few times in "professional" APs, such as Matt Colville's Chain of Acheron or Fear the Boot's Skies of Glass.

In general: the usual thing of don't have a single line of play through which the 'plot' must proceed, and don't approach scenarios with a mindset about what's supposed to happen such that you feel that something went wrong when those things don't happen. That way 'we wanted to get these guys to be allies, but we couldn't convince them' doesn't stall the plot. It just means that now when the attack happens, there's no Changeling assistance, and game continues. If players feel it's unfair, be very direct and explicit about what they would have had to do (not framed as 'what mistake you made' but framed as 'this is the deal: they get info, you get allies') and even retcon and let them try again.

That is more or less what ended up happening.

It still ended up with my players being frustrated at their inability to find any allies and me being baffled as to why they wouldn't / couldn't just answer a direct question no matter how many NPCs asked.

You need to communicate your expectations clearly. If your NPCs need more information have them ask specific probing questions intended to elicit that information. And match that to the players' goals as well. The players' goal is to get the Changelings to do something.

This right here is the problem. The NPCs were asking very specific probing questions, and the players were continually blowing them off. That is the crux of the issue.

In this situation they probably shouldn't be asking about the Fomorians' plan, they should be asking specifically what the players want them to do, and then stating their price for doing it.

The players wanted the changelings to storm the formorian nest in the city, but never offered them any reason why they should want to do this, and furthermore they were very insistent that they had nothing to offer the changelings in exchange.

the problem is, this should not stall the game or "force the dm to stall the plot". so the players failed to get allies, so what? the game goes on. if you just stop the game until the players succeed in allying with the changelings, you are railroading the game. if you stop the game until the players ally with the changelings by telling them the plan of the fomorians, you are doubly railroading: once because you want the players to ally with the changelings, and once because you want them to do it in a specific way.

I agree.

But there is a, hopefully, a middle ground between spoon-feeding the players the correct answer and giving them a hint / a chance to recover from their mistakes.

Failure frustrates players as much as railroading does (probably far more in reality, although railroading is more of a boogeyman online), and I don't really think its crossing a line to ask the players if they are sure they want to do something reckless, remind them if they have forgotten a plan, or have a convenient NPC ask pointed questions.

Especially in this particular case were the players "plan B" is basically committing an act of mass terrorism and killing thousands of bystanders, including many of their friends and families.

[icefractal]

Fear of saying too much and having it bite them in the ass is a big one. And this fear doesn't even have to come from your game, it can come from other games they've played or just the general zeitgeist. I mean, we all know those amusing stories about players who blabbed something big to "obviously" the wrong NPC, with disastrous results, right? I'm not going to say it's wrong to have those stories, but keep in mind that every player reading one of them is potentially a player who's going to clam up and tell NPCs as little as possible.

I mean heck, that's happened to me and it wasn't fun. We're infiltrating a facility, one of the PCs tells the wrong person our purpose there (played by someone new to the campaign, so a very understandable mistake), and as a result of that plus other mistakes, we fail and bad things happen to the campaign world. Maybe for someone with a more "losing is fun" attitude it'd be fine, but for me it's just made me bummed out and reluctant to continue that saga.

As for what to do about that? IDK - making it more black-and-white who's an enemy and who's a potential ally could help, but that does limit the campaign concepts.

[NichG]

That is more or less what ended up happening.

It still ended up with my players being frustrated at their inability to find any allies and me being baffled as to why they wouldn't / couldn't just answer a direct question no matter how many NPCs asked.

These two sentences don't make sense together.

Did you say explicitly: "Okay lets try this again. The changelings need to know everything you know about the Fomorian attack before they will help you. If you tell them, they will help you. If you do not tell them, they will not help you. Do you tell them or not?". Did one of your players then say "No we don't tell them." but then be surprised that no, they wouldn't ally?

Or did you just imply that the Changelings wanted to know more?

[GloatingSwine]

This right here is the problem. The NPCs were asking very specific probing questions, and the players were continually blowing them off. That is the crux of the issue.

The players wanted the changelings to storm the formorian nest in the city, but never offered them any reason why they should want to do this, and furthermore they were very insistent that they had nothing to offer the changelings in exchange.

This is where the Changelings should be naming their price though. If the Changelings had specific knowledge of what was being asked of them, but no knowledge that they stand to benefit from doing it, then they should be telling the players what their aid will cost. Which should probably be some kind of equivalent service in future that cannot be refused.

The fact that the players didn't use the information they had as leverage then just means they paid more than they had to, or found the price too high and walked on the deal, but at least you put a deal on the table in front of them.

And then you could ask them OOC why they didn't use their information.

[Talakeal]

These two sentences don't make sense together.

Did you say explicitly: "Okay lets try this again. The changelings need to know everything you know about the Fomorian attack before they will help you. If you tell them, they will help you. If you do not tell them, they will not help you. Do you tell them or not?". Did one of your players then say "No we don't tell them." but then be surprised that no, they wouldn't ally?

Or did you just imply that the Changelings wanted to know more?

The players are children who found out that their tenement building is home to a pack of black spiral dancer werewolves who are turning its residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the garou in Muir Woods.
One of the children is a changeling, and they decided to ask the local Seelie court for help.
The players do not know that the Seelie court have a freehold in Muir Woods.
The players ask the Seelie to come and kill the werewolves in their building.
The Seelie ask, very specifically, what the fomori are planning.
If the players had mentioned an attack on Muir Woods, they would have been alerted to the threat to their freehold.
The players just gave very broad generalities, saying that they were evil and they were in the city and that should be enough.
The changelings said that it wasn't their fight and they had no reason to get involved.
The players then decided to go back to plan B, finding a way to blow a high rise tenement building in the middle of San Francisco in which most of their friends and families live.
I asked them if they were sure they wanted to go down this route, and then they complained that they had no choice because the Seelie were being unreasonable.
The players ended up frustrated, I ended up baffled, and next session is going to go in a very different direction than I thought with them trying to make a deal with some unseelie goblins to blow up the building.


I am kind of confused about whether you are advocating:
A: The GM playing it straight and letting the story develop naturally to avoid railroading.
B: The GM breaking character, telling the players what they need to do, and ret-conning the situation for the desired result.

This is where the Changelings should be naming their price though. If the Changelings had specific knowledge of what was being asked of them, but no knowledge that they stand to benefit from doing it, then they should be telling the players what their aid will cost. Which should probably be some kind of equivalent service in future that cannot be refused.

The fact that the players didn't use the information they had as leverage then just means they paid more than they had to, or found the price too high and walked on the deal, but at least you put a deal on the table in front of them.

And then you could ask them OOC why they didn't use their information.

The players made it very clear that they were offering absolutely nothing to the fey and were expecting them to attack the fomorians out of the goodness of their heart because "the Seelie are good guys and destroying evil is what good guys do."

The few fey who asked about payment were very bluntly shut down, because the players are more than a little paranoid about actually making a deal with the fey and being bound to a promise they didn't intent to make, and they were very explicit that, as children, they both would not and could not pay the fey for their help.

[Cactus]

An alternative approach could be to have the seelie outline the kind of situation they would be willing to get involved in. "If you have knowledge the werewolves are planning something specific we might be more interested" should be enough to prompt a reasonable player to think "Hey, we do know something. They're going to attack Muir Wood." If they give up this information the Seelie can explain about their settlement and an alliance should follow.

[icefractal]

In this case, part of the problem was that the players don't know the fey care about Muir woods. So (if these are city-dwelling fey) they might assume that conveying this information would be negative to their cause.

Compare:
"Your majesty, we need all your elite knights to shut down a demon cult that's operating inside your kingdom."
"Your majesty, we need all your elite knights to shut down a demon cult that's using your kingdom as a staging ground to launch an attack on another kingdom you're not allies with."

While kinda forced, it might have helped to make the fey lead by example by over-sharing. Something like:
"You say we need to stop this, but are they attacking [current location]? Are they attacking Muir woods? Are they attacking [some other place]? No? Then how exactly is it our responsibility to deal with?"

[NichG]

The players are children who found out that their tenement building is home to a pack of black spiral dancer werewolves who are turning its residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the garou in Muir Woods.
One of the children is a changeling, and they decided to ask the local Seelie court for help.
The players do not know that the Seelie court have a freehold in Muir Woods.
The players ask the Seelie to come and kill the werewolves in their building.
The Seelie ask, very specifically, what the fomori are planning.
If the players had mentioned an attack on Muir Woods, they would have been alerted to the threat to their freehold.
The players just gave very broad generalities, saying that they were evil and they were in the city and that should be enough.
The changelings said that it wasn't their fight and they had no reason to get involved.
The players then decided to go back to plan B, finding a way to blow a high rise tenement building in the middle of San Francisco in which most of their friends and families live.
I asked them if they were sure they wanted to go down this route, and then they complained that they had no choice because the Seelie were being unreasonable.
The players ended up frustrated, I ended up baffled, and next session is going to go in a very different direction than I thought with them trying to make a deal with some unseelie goblins to blow up the building.

Yeah that's not actually like what I said... Its not 'are you sure?', its 'Okay this is explicitly why the Seelie are refusing. Also I am telling you explicitly OOC that if you give them the info they're asking for, they will help.' Don't leave room for a misunderstanding of what's needed or what will happen.

I am kind of confused about whether you are advocating:
A: The GM playing it straight and letting the story develop naturally to avoid railroading.
B: The GM breaking character, telling the players what they need to do, and ret-conning the situation for the desired result.

In this case, I'm advocating trying B, because you described an out of character sense of frustration that you and particular players are having. Solve OOC problems out of character.

Specifically, you have evidence that there's a serious failure of communication going on at the table. Someone, probably everyone, is not understanding each other and what the actual situation is. Or maybe someone is being intentionally dense. But as long as you're trying to use IC behaviors and tells and stuff, you're leaving room for this kind of misunderstanding and frustration. So yes, break character, and say, as explicitly as you possibly can: 'Hey guys, the Changelings are saying no because you're refusing to give them information. They would say yes if you gave them the information. Does that deal work for you? If no, why don't you want to give them the information?'

You might discover that the players thought they did give them the information! You might discover that the players mistrust them! But if you don't actually dumb it down so much and sit on the point until it is 100% clear and resolved, you'll never know.

So if you actually want to know why this keeps happening and be able to do something about it, that becomes more important than maintaining the immersion or challenge of that particular in character situation.

[Talakeal]

Yeah that's not actually like what I said... Its not 'are you sure?', its 'Okay this is explicitly why the Seelie are refusing. Also I am telling you explicitly OOC that if you give them the info they're asking for, they will help.' Don't leave room for a misunderstanding of what's needed or what will happen.



In this case, I'm advocating trying B, because you described an out of character sense of frustration that you and particular players are having. Solve OOC problems out of character.

Specifically, you have evidence that there's a serious failure of communication going on at the table. Someone, probably everyone, is not understanding each other and what the actual situation is. Or maybe someone is being intentionally dense. But as long as you're trying to use IC behaviors and tells and stuff, you're leaving room for this kind of misunderstanding and frustration. So yes, break character, and say, as explicitly as you possibly can: 'Hey guys, the Changelings are saying no because you're refusing to give them information. They would say yes if you gave them the information. Does that deal work for you? If no, why don't you want to give them the information?'

You might discover that the players thought they did give them the information! You might discover that the players mistrust them! But if you don't actually dumb it down so much and sit on the point until it is 100% clear and resolved, you'll never know.

So if you actually want to know why this keeps happening and be able to do something about it, that becomes more important than maintaining the immersion or challenge of that particular in character situation.

Ok, I think I got you.

I was more responding to:

In general: the usual thing of don't have a single line of play through which the 'plot' must proceed, and don't approach scenarios with a mindset about what's supposed to happen such that you feel that something went wrong when those things don't happen. That way 'we wanted to get these guys to be allies, but we couldn't convince them' doesn't stall the plot. It just means that now when the attack happens, there's no Changeling assistance, and game continues.

As being what happened. I didn't have a single line of play, they wanted changeling allies but didn't get them, and the game continued in a different direction.



Actually breaking character and telling the PCs: "If you do X, Y will happen" is kind of a last resort, as it shatters both immersion and a sense of challenge. At that point, I feel like it is less of an RPG and more of a collaborative storytelling activity or something.

And this was hardly a "break glass in case of emergency" situation.

Mostly, I am just freaking baffled about why PCs refuse to spill the beans so often.

[Slipjig]

I've definitely seen this happen at my table. A lot of players seem to always default to lying, even when telling the truth would absolutely be to their advantage. I'm not really sure what the fix is, other than maybe having a friendly NPC pull a character aside and say, "Is there any reason you aren't telling them X?"

Of course, plenty of DMs also run NPCs as needlessly cagey. I've gotten to the point where I'm perfectly happy to say to questgivers, "Look, I'm not having any of that 'Cryptic Jedi' bull****. If you refuse to answer basic questions about the job, we're walking away."

If you think the PCs are being needlessly cagey, have one of the NPCs get exasperated and say some variation on the above to them. Or possibly have one of them say something that makes it clear exactly what might get them motivated. In the case of your WoD game, maybe one of the Changelings says, "I'm sorry, Old Bean, but it's nothing to us what some fomori get up to in the city!" If the players don't pick up on that cue, have them make an Insight/Manipulation check to realize that he just implied they WOULD care about the fomori getting up to things in other places.

[Jay R]

Advice for the specific situation:

Decide when the changelings find out about the attack some other way, and when they eventually charge in. When it's over, they can ask the PCs why they didn't tell the changelings the attack was coming.

In the ideal game, the PCs and changelings do actually win, but the PCs wind up less rewarded than they would have been if they had told them. Possibly there is a party of NPCs who tell the changelings, and get some fun magic items or buffs from the changelings for the battle.

Later, the DM can point out to the players that if you want to convince people, you need to give them the convincing facts.

One other comment, from my "Rules for DMs" document:

48. For the players to be free to be clever, they must be free to be stupid. For them to be free to make the right decision, they must be free to make the wrong decision. Either way, it’s the freedom to make the choice for their PCs.

a. If you carefully prevent them from making any mistakes, then you’re the one who’s playing the characters.
b. This can require careful judgment calls. Find a way to prevent them from making TPK-causing errors based on no information. Don’t bother to keep them from losing their pumpkins.

[Telok]

I've got something somewhat similar in that several of my players have adverse reactions to npcs with any form of authority and get really abrasive about it. To the point where "my blowing up the police is showing that they aren't strong enough and they should thank me for it" was something actually said with a straight face (they are now rightly wanted on terrorism charges). They'll lie, insult, murder, run away, and generally do anything except talk to any authority figure. Even the ones that actually started out liking them and wanting to help them.

Its like... I can run a game where they're scum and villian outlaws. But give me some warning and a direction you want to go before just blowing up buildings on video and claiming its not your fault that everyone inside died. It doesn't help that they all also always go with the "dumpstat charisma" trope characters who have a hard time convincing people of anything.

[ciopo]

It could maybe be a matter of presentation

Here is a recent example from my thursday campaign :

Us, the party, are doing a multi-stage fetch quest to resurrect the guardian beast of a temple, that temple is sealing some big evil thing, and without the guardian beast the monks lifeforce itself is consumed to keep the seal up, the timeline is very strict.

We passed by that temple for unrelated reasons, but a mcguffin urn turned out to be related to this place, and contains the ashes of the guardian beast. Abbot was ready for us and tries with a true resurrection scroll, but fails, plot happens and in short we need to obtain "waters of life" and a cauldron of resurrection, only that combo of stuff is strong enough to resurrect the guardian beast.

Stuff happens, we obtain the waters of life, we adventure a little to get the cash to be lent a cauldron of resurrection form one of the major churchs ( they have monopoly on those kind of resurrection services ).


So, pertinent to the thread, we go to the church of the deity most likely to be mercenary about lending out the magic item, the Church of Abadar, god of wealth and commerce and other stuff.

The cleric we talk with is insistent about knowing what/who we want the cauldron of resurrection for.


Like, GM at a point straight up tell us "how much do you tell him?"

That? that's uncomfortable to answer, it feels like a set up for a double cross or the church milking us for extra money, because there is a time limit of a sort etcetera etcetera.


We end up telling him not the circumstances but that the creature we are to resurrect is the guardian beast of (TEMPLE X) , also known as the mount/companion of (mythological figure in the setting)

session ends with the plot twist/dramatic reveal that said mount is a beast ascended to divinity within the setting, the patron of griffins and snake-dragons ( more or less Kukulkan adapted )


I still don't know if revealing who we want to resurrect was a good idea or not. We were being cagey about revealing stuff, even if nominally we shouldn't have had any reason to doubt that cleric/his church.


In general, especially when it comes to some kind of transaction such as my example and possibly your changeling example, if I as a player ask for help / a service / something like that , where I'm prepared to pay for the service or whatever, then if whoever I'm asking for help asks me "what for?" the gut reaction is "none of your busyness". And the more you ask me to tell you my intentions the more I feel uncomfortable about telling you more details.

The above cleric of Abadar conversation, it was a back and forth, I dont' remember the specific, but like, after I said, without lying, "the guardian beast of a lawful-good aligned temple", in my mind that was more or less all he needed to know, and when I say we'd like to have the cauldorn rented to us, I specifically said rent, not "borrow", it was clear we would pay for the service ( there is no ambiguity in the verb used in Italian )

[Mastikator]

I've got something somewhat similar in that several of my players have adverse reactions to npcs with any form of authority and get really abrasive about it. To the point where "my blowing up the police is showing that they aren't strong enough and they should thank me for it" was something actually said with a straight face (they are now rightly wanted on terrorism charges). They'll lie, insult, murder, run away, and generally do anything except talk to any authority figure. Even the ones that actually started out liking them and wanting to help them.

Its like... I can run a game where they're scum and villian outlaws. But give me some warning and a direction you want to go before just blowing up buildings on video and claiming its not your fault that everyone inside died. It doesn't help that they all also always go with the "dumpstat charisma" trope characters who have a hard time convincing people of anything.

It's not unusual for this phenomenon to show up on this board, by that I mean players (and especially GMs) describing this happening at their table. I've also seen it at many of the tables top groups I've played with over the decades. It reminds me of a thing that was said by Spock in Star Trek (the original show from 60 years ago), in the episode Mirror Mirror.

Spoiler: Star Trek Mirror Mirror plot summary and quote

Show

In the episode there is a transporter malfunction and Kirk is sent to an evil parallel universe, where is counterpart is sent to his universe. In the episode we see how he copes and quickly takes on the role of a barbarian to easily hide the fact that he's an impostor. Eventually he's able to get back to his own universe. There he discovers that his evil counterpart was immediately discovered. A question is posed why he was able to get away but his counterpart (who is exactly the same, but evil) was so easily discovered.

Spock says this: " It was far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men"

This is something I think applies to RPGs as well.

I'm going to use an example from my real life here, we made a one-shot game where each player's character was designed by the group. The goal was to challenge each player, get them to try something completely different than what they usually do. It was a mixed result. Specifically with the two players who always seem to make evil characters, they just couldn't figure out how to play as good characters.

I guess my aesop is: don't expect players to do things they are incapable of. If a player lacks integrity don't expect their characters to have integrity. If a player can't take responsibility for their actions don't expect their characters to either.
And I don't think you can fix them. Accept them for the murder-hobos they are, or boot them from your game.

[GloatingSwine]

The players made it very clear that they were offering absolutely nothing to the fey and were expecting them to attack the fomorians out of the goodness of their heart because "the Seelie are good guys and destroying evil is what good guys do."

Sounds like they have nothing to offer.

They're poor kids from the projects with no material or spiritual resources and no pertinent information, and you expect them to say something they have no reason to know is relevant. If they don't know the Changelings have any interests in the Muir Woods they have no reason to mention them. And they're in this situation because they have faulty (out of character, it sounds like) expectations of the nature of the Seelie court as romantic crusaders against evil in all its forms.

Except you don't expect this to be their induction into the Unseelie, despite the situation as you described being almost custom designed to produce that outcome! Seriously, this is a starting story for a group to be inducted into the Unseelie court after seeing the selfish hypocrisy of the Seelie not acting except for their own. (Honour is a lie, writ large in their lives)

Your social scene was just the players being asked for a password when they didn't know the password and they didn't even know that the password could ever have existed or been learned.

[Unoriginal]

Ok, I think I got you.

I was more responding to:



As being what happened. I didn't have a single line of play, they wanted changeling allies but didn't get them, and the game continued in a different direction.



Actually breaking character and telling the PCs: "If you do X, Y will happen" is kind of a last resort, as it shatters both immersion and a sense of challenge. At that point, I feel like it is less of an RPG and more of a collaborative storytelling activity or something.

And this was hardly a "break glass in case of emergency" situation.

Mostly, I am just freaking baffled about why PCs refuse to spill the beans so often.

Imagine you're GMing a campaign and the players acquired an anti-dragon sword, and know it has special dragon-slaying powers. Just after that, you state they are attacked by a dragon, who doesn't want people with anti-dragon swords roaming around.

Yet, despite the dragon whaling on them, none of the players do anything with the sword, specifically chosing other options each time.

As a GM, I would ask my players *why* they are not using the sword.

It's not a question of just telling them "you need to do X to have Y", but if the players are withholding something that would help them and they haven't told you why they're doing it, asking is paramount.

Also have to point out that "the Seelie are the good guys, so they should risk life and limbs fighting on our behalf for free" and "We're afraid of accidentally making a deal by saying too much to the Seelie" are two beliefs pretty at odd with each other. Maybe there is something about the lore the players have misunderstood or forgotten?

[Vyke]

The players are children who found out that their tenement building is home to a pack of black spiral dancer werewolves who are turning its residents into fomori in preparation for an attack on the garou in Muir Woods.
One of the children is a changeling, and they decided to ask the local Seelie court for help.
The players do not know that the Seelie court have a freehold in Muir Woods.
The players ask the Seelie to come and kill the werewolves in their building.
The Seelie ask, very specifically, what the fomori are planning.
If the players had mentioned an attack on Muir Woods, they would have been alerted to the threat to their freehold.
The players just gave very broad generalities, saying that they were evil and they were in the city and that should be enough.
The changelings said that it wasn't their fight and they had no reason to get involved.
The players then decided to go back to plan B, finding a way to blow a high rise tenement building in the middle of San Francisco in which most of their friends and families live.
I asked them if they were sure they wanted to go down this route, and then they complained that they had no choice because the Seelie were being unreasonable.
The players ended up frustrated, I ended up baffled, and next session is going to go in a very different direction than I thought with them trying to make a deal with some unseelie goblins to blow up the building.


I am kind of confused about whether you are advocating:
A: The GM playing it straight and letting the story develop naturally to avoid railroading.
B: The GM breaking character, telling the players what they need to do, and ret-conning the situation for the desired result.




The players made it very clear that they were offering absolutely nothing to the fey and were expecting them to attack the fomorians out of the goodness of their heart because "the Seelie are good guys and destroying evil is what good guys do."

The few fey who asked about payment were very bluntly shut down, because the players are more than a little paranoid about actually making a deal with the fey and being bound to a promise they didn't intent to make, and they were very explicit that, as children, they both would not and could not pay the fey for their help.

I'm kind of with you on the confusion here. If you offer a bad deal it may not get accepted.

It might be worth having a representative of the Court going back to them, someone who sees the potentially brokering a deal as advantageous to them, and saying something absolutely explicit like "When you visited us you declined to give details of your expectations. Perhaps you were overwhelmed by the presence of so many of the Court and perhaps you were wary of betrayal. I am here to get your precise expectations and then I will tell you what our support costs. Without specifics we can't come to an agreement. If we can't come to an arrangement then, fine, we wish you the best of luck. You must understand it's not personal. We simply can't risk our people when it's not our fight without suitable recompense. We have commitments to other battles that you are unaware of and our attention on your issue risks a loss of attention elsewhere."

Other than that, dunno, all you can do is ask them....

Actually something has occurred to me. When your players think of success in a social encounter do they see success as "The other group agreed to meet our expectations for a price we find acceptable" or "The other group agreed to fulfil all our needs at no cost to cost to us"? Because the latter, total conversion to the players' viewpoint, is far less common an acceptable mutual compromise.

[GloatingSwine]

You must understand it's not personal. We simply can't risk our people when it's not our fight without suitable recompense. We have commitments to other battles that you are unaware of and our attention on your issue risks a loss of attention elsewhere."

The thing is Talakeal is expecting the players to give information that the Court will use to understand that it is their fight, but the players don't know the information means that, so they can't possibly know that they should be saying it.

They're being asked for a password they don't know is the password, obliquely enough that they don't even know they're being asked for a password, and Talakeal is wondering why they are evading direct questions!

The only way they "answer" the question is just by spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident.

[Vahnavoi]

I've got something somewhat similar in that several of my players have adverse reactions to npcs with any form of authority and get really abrasive about it. To the point where "my blowing up the police is showing that they aren't strong enough and they should thank me for it" was something actually said with a straight face (they are now rightly wanted on terrorism charges). They'll lie, insult, murder, run away, and generally do anything except talk to any authority figure. Even the ones that actually started out liking them and wanting to help them.

Ah, the contrarian, a classic and underappreciated player archetype.

Be thankful if they only do this in a game. Worst examples extend their authority problems to the game master.

---

I guess my aesop is: don't expect players to do things they are incapable of. If a player lacks integrity don't expect their characters to have integrity. If a player can't take responsibility for their actions don't expect their characters to either.
And I don't think you can fix them. Accept them for the murder-hobos they are, or boot them from your game.

Oh, it may be possible to fix them. If the root reason is that they're kids, they may just grow out of it on their own. If they're teenagers or young adults with no severe underlying neurological or psychological issues, it is possible to teach them and - good news! - games can be used as a medium for teaching them.

The bad news is that the timespan is usually measured in years.

[Batcathat]

The thing is Talakeal is expecting the players to give information that the Court will use to understand that it is their fight, but the players don't know the information means that, so they can't possibly know that they should be saying it.

They're being asked for a password they don't know is the password, obliquely enough that they don't even know they're being asked for a password, and Talakeal is wondering why they are evading direct questions!

The only way they "answer" the question is just by spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident.

I mean, I can sort of understand the players in this situation but saying that "revealing more about the situation at hand" equals "spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident" seems like quite a stretch.

As for the problem itself, I've certainly experienced players being a little too cautious/paranoid for their own good, but I don't think it's been the default among people I've played with. If I was the GM in this situation, I would probably just let it play out (the characters can be unnecessarily paranoid too) and maybe mention it afterwards to possibly avoid the situation in the future (then again, in the future revealing too much might be the wrong choice, so y'know... )

Of course, if the issue is that they don't actually remember the details, that's a different problem entirely.

[Vyke]

The thing is Talakeal is expecting the players to give information that the Court will use to understand that it is their fight, but the players don't know the information means that, so they can't possibly know that they should be saying it.

They're being asked for a password they don't know is the password, obliquely enough that they don't even know they're being asked for a password, and Talakeal is wondering why they are evading direct questions!

The only way they "answer" the question is just by spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident.

I get that, that's why the new NPC needs to be really explicit about wanting details. And if they can't form an agreement then the attack lands as it does. Maybe the Seelie then turn up after ground has been lost and ask "Why didn't you tell us it was happening here. We'd have supported you as neighbours." There have been any numbers of potential alliances both real life and fiction that have been hindered by bad communication. And when you're going cap in hand to ask for help... the onus is on you to make the dialogue work.

This is the gameplay in this encounter. If the Seelie will just rush out and do whatever some random kids say then there's no point to the encounter. The social challenge in this encounter is for the players to realise that the shared location is the lever they need to pull to make reinforcements fall out. They do know where the attack is going to fall. They have the "password" if you like. Maybe they say it because the know there's a freehold, maybe they say it because they realise that without being willing to extend that trust they won't get the reinforcements*. Doesn't matter. If they don't... then they've failed to succeed that social encounter and they'll have to find other allies or figure out another solution. Which is fine. That's where the game goes.

*Of course being the side that extends trust first when you go cap in hand for support inherently makes you the weaker partner in discussion. They may not like the idea of being vulnerable in that way. But that's a different problem and pride causes its own issues.

[GloatingSwine]

This is the gameplay in this encounter. If the Seelie will just rush out and do whatever some random kids say then there's no point to the encounter. The social challenge in this encounter is for the players to realise that the shared location is the lever they need to pull to make reinforcements fall out. They do know where the attack is going to fall. They have the "password" if you like. Maybe they say it because the know there's a freehold, maybe they say it because they realise that without being willing to extend that trust they won't get the reinforcements*. Doesn't matter. If they don't... then they've failed to succeed that social encounter and they'll have to find other allies or figure out another solution. Which is fine. That's where the game goes.

They don't know about the freehold though, they don't know there is a shared location. That's why I say the only way they could produce the password is at random, just spooling out every piece of information they possess without any intentionality because they don't know what, if any, of it is relevant.

They're also not asking for the Court to go to and defend Muir Woods, they're asking them to assault the Fomorians in their base which is in the tenement the characters live in. Muir Woods is not relevant to their request.

They "have" the password, but they don't and can't know they're being asked for a password because they don't have the context that lets them percieve that.

I mean, I can sort of understand the players in this situation but saying that "revealing more about the situation at hand" equals "spewing out words until they hit on the right one completely by accident" seems like quite a stretch.

It's at random because they don't have the context that lets them know what is and is not relevant. They have no way to measure and decide what information is going to help and what isn't.