Players characters evading direct questions

[Talakeal]

Their party includes a half-fey that does the "magically screw people who deal with them" trick. They are absolutely right to distrust fey.

The thing is, they don't know this in character.

And OOC they know well enough that Bob is being far more of a pratt than you average Changeling.

We talked about it when it happened, but if you have a condition that prevents you from reading the mood of your players (or if you're simply unsure about it), you absolutely should ask for their direct, explicit consent when they get pushed into what could be an unconfortable/dangerous situation.
As players, we tend to go along with some stuff because of table pressure, because we don't want to be the guy who drags the game. Silence is NOT a sign of consent. Nor is "yeah, I guess I'll do it". In fact, sometimes, silence is rather a sign of strong disconfort.
Any player should be made aware that they can demand a pause to ask "wait a second. Are we really doing this?", but since the GM is an "outsider" in this players-dynamic, they're in the best place to do it.

" Brian, that plan will put your character in a deadly situation if the vampires wake up. Do you want to do it anyway?"

" That could succeed, but Dave, are you actually Okay with the whole seduction thing? No, not your character, I'm asking about you. Your character is the one that would carry out the plan. How do you want to proceed?"


Assuming that my players were okay with a social dynamic around the table led to several nasty arguments around my table. And those were mature players I knew for 20+ years, and that I thought I could "read".
Asking questions, asking for direct input and consent, is important.

- When in doubt about the way a player understands the situation, ask.
- When you don't understand why a player is doing something weird, ask.
- When you don't know if a player is having fun, ask.

And don't fear addressing the players OOC. If you talk OOC, they will know it's you, the GM, talking, not some sneaky NPC trying to manipulate them.

In both of these cases, I absolutely did ask.

The problem is, the players are far too scared of going against the rest of the group to tell me they aren't comfortable with it, and I am incapable of reading body language, and so they just go along with the plan at the table and then blame me later in private.

I have a question, though : You say you know about "line and veils", but you keep triggering your players. Do you apply them? More specifically, did you discuss with you players where those lines and veils should be applied? For example, if the religious player had asked for a veil on anything sex-related, and a firm line on prostitution and illicit sex, it would have prevented the brothel situation (and the town's "saloon dancing girls" would have been actually dancing girls and not an euphemism for something else, I guess ^^)

I have never formally used lines and veils, and the whorehouse example is from before that terminology had ever been invented.

Instead, I ask the players at the start of the game to tell me if there are any topics I need to avoid, and make sure they know they need to speak up at the time if they are uncomfortable with something that happens in the game.

I have never had a player take me up on it. Instead, they just keep quiet and then get mad at me after it is too late to do anything about it.


Although, I can kind of see where they are coming from. As a burn victim, I sometimes get a bit "triggered" by descriptions of fire damage in games, but I would never dream of making this anyone else's problem, as dragon's breath and fireball spells are such an integral part of the game.

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

Very true.

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



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

The thing is, what I see as the problem, what my players see as the problem, and what the forum sees as the problem are very different.


Most of the advice in this thread is about taking broad overarching steps to prevent the very specific situation from ever coming up again. In my opinion, it is far worse than the disease. But also, it is only for the very specific problem, which only came up once and is very unlikely to ever come up again.


Like, imagine a couple goes out to dinner for their anniversary. The husband flirts with the waitress, and as a result, the wife stabs him in the hand with a fork. This is clearly a troubled relationship with inappropriate behavior, right? So, do you think the best advise here is "Never go out to eat again and only cook at home from now on"? Because that would have prevented this particular instance, but does nothing to solve the actual underlying issues, and is a giant pain in the butt to boot.


Like, the topic with this thread. The game wasn't ruined, it's just the one scene dragged on a bit and the players walked away slightly disappointed because they didn't meet their goals. But it wasn't a big deal. Mostly, I was just baffled about why the players don't answer direct questions when it would behoove them to do so. This happens many times at my table, but also other tables I have sat at, as well as various actual plays I have listened to. I didn't ask for help per se, just to see if anyone else has some stories to share about the topic and how other people have responded.

The proposed solution of making sure you break character and tell the players how to accomplish their goals any time they are acting strangely is, imo, a far worse problem as now you are talking away their agency and putting the storyline on rails.


But, let's look at some of the older stories.

So, we have Bob casting an illusion spell that pretends to be the thing it is a copy of.
It works great and helps the party tremendously.
Then, he decides it would be more convenient in one particular encounter if instead of acting like the thing it was a copy of, it would serve as a diversion.
His argument is that things should not act like the thing they are a copy of not as they do act, but how they would act if they knew they were an illusion.
I think about it, and decide that this would create more problems than it solves.
Bob tells me that if I don't rule in his favor, he will suicide his character.

So, imo, the issue is that Bob doesn't respect the GM's authority and will threaten to kill his character and disrupt the entire game to get his way.
Now, you could also argue that my decision was wrong, but that just goes with being a GM, you have to make a lot of rulings, and not everyone is going to agree with all of them.

So, the proposed solution is to allow casters to play all of their "summons" as second PCs.

IMO, this does nothing to solve the actual issue here.

It would have, in hindsight, solved this one particular issue. However, imo, it does cause a ton of further problems by making the game even more unbalanced in favor of casters, make it drag out and bore everyone by having to play out scenes where no PCs are present, make it harder to RP as you are getting a ton of OOC information you shouldn't act on, and creating weird holes in the narrative where you have minions ignoring their instructions for no in character reason.




Then we have the party stuck in a tomb:

Players can't find the hidden door to proceed.
Bob casts speak with stone.
We have a miscommunication, he doesn't understand how the spell works, but I think he is making a "new school vs. old school" argument and wanting to resolve the issue with dice rather than player ingenuity.
The dice roll fails.
The party sits in the tomb for three hours while I beg them to simply try another approach, its a super simple obstacle and there are a dozen powerful PCs with numerous mundane and supernatural powers that could solve it trivially.


So, we have two issues:

One, Brian and I are misunderstanding one another and talking past one another.
Two; the one I am actually complaining about, if the players first attempt at a task gets stymied, for whatever reason, they simply pull out their phones and withdraw from the game rather than trying something else.


So, the perceived underlying issue is about old school vs. new school play:

https://archive.org/details/a-quick-...hool%20Gaming/

Some players want to be able to succeed or fail based on their description of their approach (often straw-manned as being judged on flowery dialogue) while some players want things to be resolved by dice.

The proposed solution is to simply let players auto succeed on any task that they could have theoretically bypassed without a dice roll, even if nobody at the table knows what that might be.

IMO, this is again, a very big problem, as suddenly it is no longer a game, merely the GM narrating endless succsesss with no input from the players; but worse, it is actually disconnected from the narrative as the players no longer give input to their actions; instead it is either handled off screen or a total railroad.


And, once again, the actuall issues; that Brian and I misunderstand one another and that my players disconnect from the game whenever their first approach fails, aren't actually touched upon in any meaningful way.

[Kish]

I think people addressed what you're insisting the main issue is ever since the beginning of the thread, Talakeal. For one completely random example from the first page:

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

If you want to hear "oh yeah, everyone's players do that and this is what I do when mine do" as parts of your latest post suggest...you're not going to. They don't. Like most of your complaints it's a great rarity.

(And in the married couple example, I find it hard to imagine you don't immediately realize the overwhelming tide of advice would be "they should divorce," which 1) would solve the underlying problem there, 2) is the only thing that likely would solve the underlying problem there at the extremity you've presented it without creating a much worse one, and 3) is advice which you've also received on dealing with your group. So yeah.)

[Talakeal]

I think people addressed what you're insisting the main issue is ever since the beginning of the thread, Talakeal. For one completely random example from the first page:

If you want to hear "oh yeah, everyone's players do that and this is what I do when mine do" as parts of your latest post suggest...you're not going to. They don't. Like most of your complaints it's a great rarity.

That is truly surprising.

It is one of the few constants in every group I have ever played in, run for, or listened to online.

Its also puzzling that they players are in some sort of weird very specific level of trust where they will go to the npcs for help but wont fill them in on the details.

[icefractal]

That is truly surprising.

It is one of the few constants in every group I have ever played in, run for, or listened to online.

Like online games you were in, or streamed / podcasted games? Because I'm pretty curious to see an example of what this looks like.

[Talakeal]

Like online games you were in, or streamed / podcasted games? Because I'm pretty curious to see an example of what this looks like.

Streamed. I can recall several instances, but not well enough to give you any specific episodes or full context. It would have been something by Fear the Boot or MCDM.


My assumption is that players are simply not paying enough attention and literally don't know that they don't know, and are too embarrassed to just come right out and say they weren't paying attestation, but that is just a hunch; my players certainly deny it.

[Kardwill]

Like online games you were in, or streamed / podcasted games? Because I'm pretty curious to see an example of what this looks like.

The "us vs them" mentality about NPCs is something I've come across in several streamed games, to be fair. I'm currently watching Critical Role (Mighty Nein campaign), and even if they're well adjusted, mature players, they have that instinctive (and kinda infuriating) habit of keeping NPCs in the dark, lying and hiding informations from most important NPC they come across, even when the GM heavily telegraphs that honesty would be to their advantage.

Sure, when you play a band of renegades, "distrust toward autorities" is part of the package, but it often feels like a "players don't trust NPCs" thing rather than a "characters don't trust NPCs" thing.


But outside of Streamed games, I also saw it in my own group. You just need players who have been burned by a GM punishing their "mistake" when they blabbed too much to the villain. They don't want to look like fools again, so they become paranoid about making the same mistake again. They sometime heavily metagame the NPC/PC difference. "NPCs are outsiders played by the GM, any one of them could be out to trick us, so they can't be trusted".

It took my group some time to overcome that mindset and have players that trust that it's okay, and even fun, to take risks and make mistakes.

[Kish]

Well, if it's a constant in the games you've played in, then it should be simple for you to figure out: when you're a player, why do you evade direct questions?

(As for why they would go to the party and then still not tell the fae there "they're planning an attack in Muir Woods," well. No one can really answer that without full context we don't have, but multiple people have given answers that could make sense for the caginess about answering questions. "I expect the fae to screw me over if my words give them a chance" is hardly an illogical attitude for anyone familiar with stories about the fae unless you have gone out of your way to give them a kind of OOC reassurance that you never give. As for why they were going there..."They received an invitation to a party," you said. Did they...I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this. Were they looking at "go here if, and only if, you choose to try to recruit the Seelie Court as allies instead of several other equally logically applicable things you could do," or were they looking at "the plot goes to this party next"?)

My assumption is that players are simply not paying enough attention and literally don't know that they don't know, and are too embarrassed to just come right out and say they weren't paying attestation, but that is just a hunch; my players certainly deny it.

Your assumption is that your players are lying. Again. This is not what "very trusting" means.

[Vahnavoi]

But outside of Streamed games, I also saw it in my own group. You just need players who have been burned by a GM punishing their "mistake" when they blabbed too much to the villain. They don't want to look like fools again, so they become paranoid about making the same mistake again. They sometime heavily metagame the NPC/PC difference. "NPCs are outsiders played by the GM, any one of them could be out to trick us, so they can't be trusted".

It took my group some time to overcome that mindset and have players that trust that it's okay, and even fun, to take risks and make mistakes.

This goes back to what I noted repeatedly on the first page:

If one want players who are perfectly forthcoming, one has to build an open atmosphere where anything can be said without fear of judgement or punishment.

A game master cannot consistently do this in any game where they play antagonist roles.

Yes, the characters played by the game master may change. It's still the same face playing them. It's the same as a movie audience suspecting a character of being a bad guy, on the basis that the actor is regularly cast as a bad guy.

A game master can demand 'till they're blue in the face that players should only act on "in-character information". It doesn't work. People don't magically forget what they already know; someone who is pretending to not know is not equivalent to someone who doesn't know. It's not possible to stop people from using metagame information such as this, it's only possible to change what they do about it.

A good chunk of the problem is that in many roleplaying games, only the game master plays antagonist characters and nothing that happens in the game can fully exclude the possibility of them playing an antagonist character. Compare with roleplaying games where social deduction is a main factor in the game play: those games typically shuffle the roles around. In such games, it is possible for the game master and their characters to be entirely beyond suspicion: there is zero chance of them screwing a player over and the player knows this. But of course, the trade-off is that some player who is not the game master has to assume an antagonist role, which many hobbyists are unreasonably opposed to. Certainly, I don't think Talakeal and his group are willing to go that anymore than Talakeal is willing to design perfect information games. Though it would be an amusing social experiment to see how Talakeal and his players would actually do in a game of Murder or Werewolf.

[King of Nowhere]

In both of these cases, I absolutely did ask.

The problem is, the players are far too scared of going against the rest of the group to tell me they aren't comfortable with it, and I am incapable of reading body language, and so they just go along with the plan at the table and then blame me later in private.

this actually reminds me of my experience with students.
in my first years of teaching, i would always ask "everything clear?" or "understood?" after explaining something. the class would do nothing or say yes, all clear. then it would turn out they understood nothing. it's one of those group dynamics things, where nobody wants to be the one to talk; or maybe they don't want to bother and think they will fix things later somehow. eventually, with experience, i learned to read the mood of a class.

i wonder if there are similar dynamics involved here. maybe most of your players don't understand the plot, but are too embarassed to admit it or to do something about it. it coould be relevant

[Jason]

Despite our earlier agreement on alignments we seemingly have a disagreement on whether any D&D world ever published would more accurately be described as "medieval" or "with some medieval trappings, none in areas which affect morality, morality being laid out in this section on alignment," but I'm confused regardless. If rape houses are common in cities your PCs find themselves in, I would think going to them--to shut them down--would be a more urgent priority than many common plot hooks.

I added "medieval" to that earlier comment but probably shouldn't have. You're correct that the published D&D worlds aren't really "medieval" in any meaningful sense (though some of the earlier TSR stuff gives a go at being a little more medieval than any D&D material since has).

At my table:

Strongly Good-aligned societies won't have brothels of any kind. They understand that paying money for sex does not exhibit "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings," and is exploitive and degrading (for all parties involved). If the player characters discover a brothel in such a society they need merely report it to the authorities. The brothel will be shut down and the former prostitutes given whatever resources they need to start a new life.

In a less strongly Good-aligned society brothels may be legal. In such a society the player characters can report particularly abusive situations and get government action, or they may take action to stop bad situations and do their best to rescue people, and then perhaps have to leave town before the legal consequences of their actions catch up with them. In either case stopping future exploitation and abuse will require changing the society to be more strongly Good-aligned. Something of a long-term project, but certainly something the PCs could pursue.

In outright Evil-aligned societies the player characters will already be actively opposing the government and trying to help and rescue its victims (remember that at my table the PCs generally play the Good guys) and, horrible to the workers as a brothel in such a society is likely to be, generally the PCs have bigger threats to the world and even more horrible things that they will have to deal with first.

In none of the above cases will my typical PCs be visiting a brothel to make use of its normal services. They're the Good guys, and they don't support or participate in the exploitation of anyone.

EDIT:

If you want to hear "oh yeah, everyone's players do that and this is what I do when mine do" as parts of your latest post suggest...you're not going to. They don't. Like most of your complaints it's a great rarity.

Yep. I don't find a refusal to answer direct questions without a good reason to be common among the groups I have either played in or run.

[kyoryu]

That is truly surprising.

It is one of the few constants in every group I have ever played in, run for, or listened to online.

Its also puzzling that they players are in some sort of weird very specific level of trust where they will go to the npcs for help but wont fill them in on the details.

It's fairly common in a "probing" style of play.

That's what I call the style of play where there are usually a small number of "successful" options available, and they are unknown, and any misstep can cause bad consequences.

In that style a game, the players spend a lot of time trying to gather information in as protected of a way as possible, exposing themselves to the least amount of risk possible.

In physical things, any exposure is risky. Things should be dealt with from a far distance, if possible, using gloves, and touching as few things as possible.

In social situations? Give the least amount of information possible.

The root of this is a belief that it may not be obvious to the players what risky moves are, and any misstep will result in catastrophe.

I'm not saying this is necessarily what is happening, but it's an explanation.

Other explanations are "they didn't realize the info was relevant" and "they actually didn't remember".

[Talakeal]

Well, if it's a constant in the games you've played in, then it should be simple for you to figure out: when you're a player, why do you evade direct questions?

Just because I have witnessed it doesn't mean I have participated in it.

Although I do tend to play pretty independent characters, so I wouldn't be surprised if I had done it at some point because I didn't want the NPCs involved.

Your assumption is that your players are lying. Again. This is not what "very trusting" means.

This thread has made me really think about what "trust" means.

Maybe "gullible" would be a better word?

I generally assume people are telling the truth unless I have evidence otherwise. As a kid, I always fell for the "my uncle works at Nintendo" stories. And like, I trust my players not to cheat on the dice or look at my notes or that kind of thing at the table.

But I don't trust them not to engage in the various personality quirks they have demonstrated time and again.

However, I am aware that people very often deny their true motivations when they are embarrassed. Hell, it isn't even really a lie, as they don't have an alternative explanation, they just get quiet and change the subject when pressed.

I added "medieval" to that earlier comment but probably shouldn't have. You're correct that the published D&D worlds aren't really "medieval" in any meaningful sense (though some of the earlier TSR stuff gives a go at being a little more medieval than any D&D material since has).

At my table:

Strongly Good-aligned societies won't have brothels of any kind. They understand that paying money for sex does not exhibit "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings," and is exploitive and degrading (for all parties involved). If the player characters discover a brothel in such a society they need merely report it to the authorities. The brothel will be shut down and the former prostitutes given whatever resources they need to start a new life.

In a less strongly Good-aligned society brothels may be legal. In such a society the player characters can report particularly abusive situations and get government action, or they may take action to stop bad situations and do their best to rescue people, and then perhaps have to leave town before the legal consequences of their actions catch up with them. In either case stopping future exploitation and abuse will require changing the society to be more strongly Good-aligned. Something of a long-term project, but certainly something the PCs could pursue.

In outright Evil-aligned societies the player characters will already be actively opposing the government and trying to help and rescue its victims (remember that at my table the PCs generally play the Good guys) and, horrible to the workers as a brothel in such a society is likely to be, generally the PCs have bigger threats to the world and even more horrible things that they will have to deal with first.

In none of the above cases will my typical PCs be visiting a brothel to make use of its normal services. They're the Good guys, and they don't support or participate in the exploitation of anyone.

This feels like a pretty extreme position. Are you sure your whole table feels this way, or maybe they are just going along with you? I just seems surprising that an entire group would agree on something like that.

Personally, I would tend to agree, but I am not sure if the same couldn't be said of all paid labor... but that is probably a discussion that can't be had without sauntering into forbidden topics.

[Slipjig]

This feels like a pretty extreme position.

That's putting it mildly. In the Realms, there are probably more festhalls than stables.

[Reversefigure4]

In both of these cases, I absolutely did ask.

The problem is, the players are far too scared of going against the rest of the group to tell me they aren't comfortable with it, and I am incapable of reading body language, and so they just go along with the plan at the table and then blame me later in private.

...

Like, imagine a couple goes out to dinner for their anniversary. The husband flirts with the waitress, and as a result, the wife stabs him in the hand with a fork. This is clearly a troubled relationship with inappropriate behavior, right? So, do you think the best advise here is "Never go out to eat again and only cook at home from now on"? Because that would have prevented this particular instance, but does nothing to solve the actual underlying issues, and is a giant pain in the butt to boot.

The obvious solution to our violently inappropriate husband and wife is for the two of them to divorce, rather than trying to solve the dinner issue. Much like how so many people have advised you to dump your toxic players, it solves all the situations rather than just the one.

Is it obvious to you that you're losing any potential good new players you might want to keep by virtue of this process? Your group will continuously winnow the table down to, at best, those who are willing to lie down and put up with the bullying and abuse, and at worst, those who either bring or develop their own toxic traits (be that bullying, disconnecting and staying on their phone, taking out their rage on the GM, etc).

[Jason]

This feels like a pretty extreme position. Are you sure your whole table feels this way, or maybe they are just going along with you? I just seems surprising that an entire group would agree on something like that.

Well I don't think we've every formally agreed on it or put it in writing, but I'm certain my players feel this way, yes. Most of us have been gaming together for a very long time.

Brothels in any form haven't really appeared much at my tables or in any of the games my current players have run that I've been a player in. As I said about slavery earlier, usually they only appear in game just before the player characters destroy them and do their best to rescue their victims.

It might be unrealistic, but we're not really interested in exploring our character's sex lives to any great extent. We're too busy exploring ruins and wilderness areas and thwarting plots to unleash eldritch evils upon the world. I've had player characters get married to NPCs or each other and become parents (or do that in reverse order), but it's not a common theme of our games.

Personally, I would tend to agree, but I am not sure if the same couldn't be said of all paid labor... but that is probably a discussion that can't be had without sauntering into forbidden topics.

Obviously getting paid for risking your lives by going out and killing monsters can't be considered exploitive or degrading in a typical D&D game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Obviously getting paid for risking your lives by going out and killing monsters can't be considered exploitive or degrading in a typical D&D game.

As long as they get paid at least union / guild scale.

(I am in two different campaigns that have adventurer's guilds, so I guess a couple of my PCs are good union men/women).

[Kish]

This thread has made me really think about what "trust" means.

Maybe "gullible" would be a better word?

I generally assume people are telling the truth unless I have evidence otherwise.

The issue isn't that you're using a positive term rather than a negative one. The issue is that you're describing yourself in a fashion antipodal to the way you act. Both in your stories about your players, and with people here, when a person who was an average amount of trusting would be going "this person thinks differently than me," you go straight to "this person is either wrong or lying." "Evidence otherwise" seems to require no more than "I don't agree with what they say."

(And no, avoiding the word "lie" in favor of euphemisms like "giving me the business" doesn't change the fact that that's what you're saying.)

[Talakeal]

The issue isn't that you're using a positive term rather than a negative one. The issue is that you're describing yourself in a fashion antipodal to the way you act. Both in your stories about your players, and with people here, when a person who was an average amount of trusting would be going "this person thinks differently than me," you go straight to "this person is either wrong or lying." "Evidence otherwise" seems to require no more than "I don't agree with what they say."

(And no, avoiding the word "lie" in favor of euphemisms like "giving me the business" doesn't change the fact that that's what you're saying.)

You are acting like it is a black and white thing. I never claimed that my credulity was without limit.

As a result of my disability I am very literal. I generally say exactly what I mean (although obviously I do make mistakes), and assume that other people are doing the same.

I generally believe people, but I have my limits. Some people are known liars; some stories are beyond belief.

I am aware that internet trolls are a thing, yet despite that, I only think a handful of people on this board are trolling, and nobody in this thread. Although there was somebody whom I told I didn't believe them, I don't think it is because they were lying, I think it was because they spoke without thinking and made a statement that was much further reaching than they intended.

I generally assume that people misunderstand me when they say something that seems over the top. For example, you are questing my response to Keltest when I said you are either misunderstanding me or giving me the business (for the record, I meant to say "a hard time" rather than "the business", but its too late now and I don't believe there is a substantive difference between the two); neither of those are a lie in my opinion, the latter is just phrasing things in an extremely negative way because you are angry with or don't like someone. Maybe you could call it an exaggeration? And, if you look at the responses that followed, you would see that it was indeed a misunderstanding.

Heck, when I receive a particularly angry post, I tend to read it to irl friends or family to see if they can explain to me why the person is so angry. 9/10 times, the response is "this person is obviously a small child or a troll, just ignore them;" yet I never do. I always assume there is a misunderstanding.

Hell, a few times, I have had people then respond with some version of "There was no misunderstanding, I was just saying things that I knew to be incorrect to bully you," which is something I never would have come to on my own.*

Likewise, at my table, I have one player whom everyone knows is a liar and a cheater, and I don't plan on playing with her long term. Aside from that, it isn't an issue. I don't need to witness players dice, nor do I use a screen to hide my dice. I don't hide my notes when I go to the bathroom. I don't collect character sheets at the end of the session. I don't make players declare their actions before rolling dice. If a player gives an excuse for why they miss a session, I accept it at face value.

I have played with GM's who did all of the above, and more, and that style of low trust gaming just isn't for me.


But... I am aware that otherwise honest people do tell lies when they are embarrassed or called out on their behavior. That is just a thing that, imo, the majority of people do.

*edit: although this may or may not actually be the case. Though I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, i am aware that many people often lie about their mistakes to appear malicious rather than incompetent.

Hell, i have even had a double whammy of people telling me “its not that I forgot what you told me, it is that i never cared what you had to say in the first place.”

Edit 2: No, there are a lot of people who must think differently that I do. Quertus and Gbaji for example, argue with me all the time, but i never once thought they were liars, merely that they have very different viewpoints than i do.

[Unoriginal]

I don't make players declare their actions before rolling dice.

What do you mean?

Players declaring their actions before rolling isn't a question of truth, it's just a requirement to play the game.

If the player doesn't declare the action, how can the GM inform them what they have to roll? Or if they even have to roll?

[kyoryu]

What do you mean?

Players declaring their actions before rolling isn't a question of truth, it's just a requirement to play the game.

If the player doesn't declare the action, how can the GM inform them what they have to roll? Or if they even have to roll?

Yeah, this is weird to me. I haven't really played in any games where not declaring your action is a viable strategy most of the time. Outside of maybe combat (if you're attacking, you know you get an opportunity to) in most games, the usual flow is "tell me what you're doing, and I'll tell you what, if any, roll to make".

[Jason]

Likewise, at my table, I have one player whom everyone knows is a liar and a cheater, and I don't plan on playing with her long term.

The only time I have tolerated playing with a known cheater was when I was gaming with a university club, and the club (and university) rules basically required that a GM accept anyone who got into your game. There was a whole elaborate process to determine what club members got into which games each term involving drawing playing cards from a hat to determine selection order. It's one of the reasons I was glad to finally leave the club and start gaming at home with my current group.

Anyway, the guy never rolled under 23 for initiative rolls in a 3E D&D game (This was pre-3.5 edition. I was running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, in fact), and I have the spreadsheets tracking the whole party's initiative rolls for that entire campaign to prove it. He used the "roll and pick up the die before anyone could see it and then announce the result" method. We all knew he was doing it, but the rules didn't allow us to kick him out of the game.
So I often fudged the attack or damage rolls when monsters attacked his character in order to try to even things out a little. I don't think he ever figured out that I was doing this, but some of the other players did, and approved.

Probably not my best approach to the problem, but I was younger. It was more than 20 years ago.

That's the game that taught me to always use a screen to hide my rolls, and I have ever since. It's not that I don't trust my current group, it's that A) We sit close enough that an inadvertent casual glance will spot my maps or other notes, and B) Sometimes the dice produce the wrong results, and I'm not going to allow the random number gods to destroy a good game. I don't fudge die rolls often, but I want the possibility left open.

I don't make players declare their actions before rolling dice.

I'm pretty sure you mean, "I don't tell a player that a good roll they just made is invalid if they didn't tell me before hand what they were rolling for," which I think is playing fair.

The normal course of play should always be that the player tells you what he or she is trying to achieve, and you tell them what skill and attribute to use, and often the DC for the roll, they decide whether they really want to try that roll or try something else instead, and only then are any dice rolled.

I have players who roll first and then declare what they're trying to do all of the time in combat. One player in particular has the bad habit of saying "these monsters need to roll a save" without even mentioning what spells he's trying to use. I don't think he's ever going to break that habit, but it can be worked around.

[Talakeal]

I have been undergoing a lot of introspection the last few days, because it does seem inherently contradictory that I would describe myself as both "cynical" and "gullible."

I think what I mean is that genuinely I take people literally and at face value, and it doesn't occur to me that they are lying unless I have a good reason to believe they are lying. And, even when someone says something totally off the wall, I generally believe there is a misunderstanding on one or both of our parts rather than dishonesty. But, at the same time, I know there are certain people whom I have learned from experience lie an awful lot (nobody in my regular gaming stable falls under this category) and there are also certain situations where most people will lie rather than admit the truth (being embarrassed about not paying attention is one of these).


But, ok, for the sake of argument, let's say I am not trusting enough. How do I change my behavior at the table to show more trust? And how will this extra trust improve the game?

What do you mean?

Players declaring their actions before rolling isn't a question of truth, it's just a requirement to play the game.

If the player doesn't declare the action, how can the GM inform them what they have to roll? Or if they even have to roll?

Most games have a solid enough rules framework that you can play without the GM's input.

In my experience, it is pretty typical in combat for players to just roll some dice and proclaim they did X damage to Y target; or if they don't know the enemy's AC also declare that they hit an AC of Z. Some GM's will demand that this roll doesn't count and that they roll again, which imo is jackass control freak behavior, but if don't trust your players not to cheat (for example swapping their target to something with a lower AC on a bad hit roll and vice versa) I can see why you would do that.

Likewise, many skills and abilities have a set difficulty. For example, in Heart of Darkness, first-aid is always a medicine check at difficulty 20 unless there are extenuating circumstances, so I let players treat their own wounds after a battle without getting involved. This caused an issue one time as a new player was convinced that Bob was "out to get him" and always assigning the failed first-aid rolls to hit character.

The bigger one is spellcasting. Heart of Darkness and most White Wolf systems are not like D&D with set spell slots and levels, but rather you build an effect on the spot, and then need to make a roll to pull it off based on how powerful / complex the spell is. In this case it would be easy to cheat by rolling the dice and then building the spell so that it is exactly as powerful as your roll will allow, but I trust my players not to do this.

[Batcathat]

Likewise, many skills and abilities have a set difficulty. For example, in Heart of Darkness, first-aid is always a medicine check at difficulty 20 unless there are extenuating circumstances, so I let players treat their own wounds after a battle without getting involved. This caused an issue one time as a new player was convinced that Bob was "out to get him" and always assigning the failed first-aid rolls to hit character.

The bigger one is spellcasting. Heart of Darkness and most White Wolf systems are not like D&D with set spell slots and levels, but rather you build an effect on the spot, and then need to make a roll to pull it off based on how powerful / complex the spell is. In this case it would be easy to cheat by rolling the dice and then building the spell so that it is exactly as powerful as your roll will allow, but I trust my players not to do this.

Even if you do trust your players not to cheat, what is the point of rolling before declaring the action? It just seems clearer for everyone involved to do it the other way around.

[icefractal]

The normal course of play should always be that the player tells you what he or she is trying to achieve, and you tell them what skill and attribute to use, and often the DC for the roll, they decide whether they really want to try that roll or try something else instead, and only then are any dice rolled.

I'm aware this is a common style, but for me it goes too far. Now I'm not saying literally roll first before saying anything, but to me this is not only fine but in fact desirable:

"I search the desk for hidden compartments ... 25"
"The chasm is 20' wide? Ok, I take a running jump across ... made it"
"During the night I'm going to work on the crossbow I'm crafting ... ok, halfway done now"

Sure, there could be secret circumstances that alter those, in which case the GM can step in as appropriate - "Roll Perception ... 12? You didn't see the hidden wires over the chasm, and hit them mid-way across. Reflex to grab on before you fall."

But in general, the basic idea of "Players can do things pro-actively (and reasonably estimate the results of things) without constantly asking the GM" is a lot more appealing as a way to play or run TTRPGs than "GM controls all rolls".

[Keltest]

Even if you do trust your players not to cheat, what is the point of rolling before declaring the action? It just seems clearer for everyone involved to do it the other way around.

Typically its just players getting enthusiastic. They'll say "I want to seduce the dragon" or whatever random nonsense it is, and roll the die simultaneously under the assumption that sure, this is a performance check or whatever.

Especially in combat, making the attack roll before your turn comes around is a practice ive seen at several tables because it helps speed up the turns, as long as you know thats what youre going to do.

[Jason]

I'm aware this is a common style, but for me it goes too far. Now I'm not saying literally roll first before saying anything, but to me this is not only fine but in fact desirable:

"I search the desk for hidden compartments ... 25"
"The chasm is 20' wide? Ok, I take a running jump across ... made it"
"During the night I'm going to work on the crossbow I'm crafting ... ok, halfway done now"

Sure, there could be secret circumstances that alter those, in which case the GM can step in as appropriate - "Roll Perception ... 12? You didn't see the hidden wires over the chasm, and hit them mid-way across. Reflex to grab on before you fall."

But in general, the basic idea of "Players can do things pro-actively (and reasonably estimate the results of things) without constantly asking the GM" is a lot more appealing as a way to play or run TTRPGs than "GM controls all rolls".

I don't see the "you tell the GM what you want to do and he tells you what skill and attribute is used and what the difficulty is before you roll" approach as the players not being pro-active. The players are still making all the decisions to act and what their character is attempting to do.

Letting the players decide what game mechanics to use to resolve an action in my opinion lessons their engagement with the game world. Ideally I don't want them to talk about any game mechanics until I do. I want them to think of themselves as a real person in a real world situation, and I want them to state their actions in real world terms instead of game terms. "I run my hands very lightly over the edges of the lock to see if I feel anything unusual," instead of "I search for traps...<roll>...20."

Doing it this way also prevents mistakes where our mental pictures of the situation aren't in sync before a good roll is wasted, and means fewer retcons.

[Talakeal]

Even if you do trust your players not to cheat, what is the point of rolling before declaring the action? It just seems clearer for everyone involved to do it the other way around.

It's much faster for one.

It allows multiple things to be occurring at the same time for another.

At the end of a long session, any chance to rest my voice is a good thing.

But mostly, saying the same thing over and over again just feels kind of... inane?

Like:
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"

Its just... everyone knows you and the orc are having a sword fight. What is the point of repeating it each and every turn?

[Batcathat]

It's much faster for one.

It allows multiple things to be occurring at the same time for another.

At the end of a long session, any chance to rest my voice is a good thing.

But mostly, saying the same thing over and over again just feels kind of... inane?

Like:
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"

Its just... everyone knows you and the orc are having a sword fight. What is the point of repeating it each and every turn?

Yeah, sure, in that situation it makes sense to keep rolling, as the circumstances doesn't change, but it seems like it would be useful in several of the examples you mentioned. It doesn't have to be completely one or the other.

[Jason]

Like:
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"
"I attack the orc in front of me with my longsword."
"Give me an attack roll against armor class 17"

Its just... everyone knows you and the orc are having a sword fight. What is the point of repeating it each and every turn?

Yes, that's a good way to bore everyone to death. Like I said, I don't strictly follow the rule in combat. But if you just say "your turn" and the players roll bunches of dice and only say numbers you have no opportunity to narrate the action in a way that can make things much more interesting.

That's why my combats are (ideally) more like:
Jason (the GM): "The Orc with the notched helmet bats your sword blow aside, and swings it's ax at Baern," <roll> "hitting him for 7 points of damage. Baern staggers a bit at the force of the blow. Bob, what does Baern do?"
Bob (Baern's player): "I scream a dwarven war cry and strike at the orc with the notched helmet's legs with my battleaxe!" <roll> "I hit AC 17 for 12 damage."
Jason: "Baern strikes true! He cuts the orc's legs out from under it. The orc collapses and doesn't move very much. The orc with the purple eye tattoo on its forehead starts chanting something and waving its arms. Baern needs to roll a Wisdom saving throw."
Bob: "Moradin give me strength!" <roll> "Ugh, a 14."
Jason: "No, that's good enough. For a moment Baern felt some magical force trying to prevent his muscles from responding to his will, but it seems to have passed. The orc with the tattooed forehead seems surprised you resisted his spell."
And so forth.

Not giving the GM the opportunity to narrate the action makes the experience much less interesting, IMO.

[Talakeal]

Yes, that's a good way to bore everyone to death. Like I said, I don't strictly follow the rule in combat. But if you just say "your turn" and the players roll bunches of dice and only say numbers you have no opportunity to narrate the action in a way that can make things much more interesting.

That's why my combats are (ideally) more like:
Jason (the GM): "The Orc with the notched helmet bats your sword blow aside, and swings it's ax at Baern," <roll> "hitting him for 7 points of damage. Baern staggers a bit at the force of the blow. Bob, what does Baern do?"
Bob (Baern's player): "I scream a dwarven war cry and strike at the orc with the notched helmet's legs with my battleaxe!" <roll> "I hit AC 17 for 12 damage."
Jason: "Baern strikes true! He cuts the orc's legs out from under it. The orc collapses and doesn't move very much. The orc with the purple eye tattoo on its forehead starts chanting something and waving its arms. Baern needs to roll a Wisdom saving throw."
Bob: "Moradin give me strength!" <roll> "Ugh, a 14."
Jason: "No, that's good enough. For a moment Baern felt some magical force trying to prevent his muscles from responding to his will, but it seems to have passed. The orc with the tattooed forehead seems surprised you resisted his spell."
And so forth.

Not giving the GM the opportunity to narrate the action makes the experience much less interesting, IMO.

This is also how I do it. If you look at your example, the GM is narrating after the dice are rolled, not before.