PC vs Player Assumptions

Auspice

@Roz I've always been one of those people tbh. I unravel shit and pick up on clues really easily. I love puzzles. It also means I have to frequently try to check myself and shove my character off into a corner to try not to spotlight because I go 'ooh ooh I see the solution!' I'm not always successful because I get really excited about a story and lose myself in it (I hope the ST sees this as the flattery it's meant to be ;.; )

As an ST, instead of putting a lot of puzzles in, I instead put in Alertness rolls or rolls geared to peoples' skill sets (Bob, roll your Computers, Jane, roll your Lockpicking) and just hand out information because I know not everyone can pick up on things that easily (and as mentioned earlier in the thread: no one wants to spend hours beating at the wall trying to find the single obscure answer in the stack of 500 source books).

Taika

I like grabbing clues and scattering them far and wide to drag more people in. I don't care about finishing it off so much as trying to get all the info in one(ish) spot and hooking more folks in, so more have the option of participating. This may tie back to preferring to play sidekick type pcs.

Ganymede

@Taika said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

I like grabbing clues and scattering them far and wide to drag more people in.

And this is why the Chronicles of Darkness has a robust Clue system for solving mysteries.

That no one seems to ever use.

Thenomain

@Ganymede

coughDoorscough

Ganymede

@Thenomain said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

coughDoorscough

Or the Chase system.

Thenomain

@Ganymede said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

@Thenomain said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

coughDoorscough

Or the Chase system.

But combat? Man, someone doesn't get combat 100% correct and it's like you pissed on their puppy while kicking it into the mouth of an orc.

These games need more chase scenes.

Taika

I think it's because they're harder, in some ways, to wrap your head around. The doors, at least. Reminds me that I need to find or make some flow sheets for these.

Ganymede

@Thenomain said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

These games need more chase scenes.

I made a character specifically to take advantage of the chase system.

Times used? Zero.

Ominous

When playing D&D, I platly it like a board game without the board. My character is a meeple. I want the puzzles, riddles, and dilemmas to challenge me, rather than the character. 'Roll to solve the ancient puzzle lock' would bore me.

When playing a MU*, I'm the opposite. I am in character and want the character to be able to do what the character can do, rather than what I can do. This, I lean more towards reaching out via pages or OOC and making sure that the player understand something, in case they are operating under a misunderstanding.

EDIT - Changed "player" to "character." Don't post while drunk, people. It leads to stupid errors like that.

Seraphim73

Like @mietze said, I think that it's incredibly important to respect player time -- and it's also incredibly important to respect game theme.

If someone is making wrong assumptions, I would absolutely check in with the player to see if it's IC confusion, or if I as the storyteller haven't made things clear enough (that's if I don't just decide to make their wrong assumptions the right ones). Because no one wants to chase something that's going to lead to a dead end.

If someone is passing on bad information, I will again check with the player, to see if the character is intentionally passing on bad information, or if there's been confusion somewhere and I can straighten it out. Because while ICly twisting information can lead to good RP, OOC games of telephone rarely do.

Ghost

IMO this is one of the bigger dilemmas in RPGaming altogether.

If you are playing a role, then should your decisions for the character be based entirely from the perspective of the character itself?

There's a few schools of thought. Lots of D&D players find it totally normal to never use metal weapons on a rust monster even though there have been no rolls to determine if the character knows about it or if it's the first time the character has encountered one. The D&D player doesnt want their metal weapons ruined, so since the PLAYER knows the monster will ruin the weapon, it's somewhat accepted that suddenly the character will arbitrarily adjust based on this knowledge. This is normal for hardcore D&D players. I think it's kinda lame and metagamey

Though, this above behavior is far less welcome in WoD, where there is more theme-policing. Just because you've seen or read of the Niktuku in the book doesn't mean your PC knows about them. This is why some editions of WoD have lore skills you can buy.

So, what I'm getting at is: Sometimes I feel like the perspective gets lost. PLAYERS are trying things through their characters, but the CHARACTERS may not know what the PLAYER knows. This is why search/learning rolls are important; they help define what knowledge the PC has to work with. Otherwise some dungeons/missions just become a bunch of PLAYERS doing an escape room using PCs as marionettes to perform the task.

I have been able to solve this issue by focusing on perception/knowledge rolls to help feed information or determine what the PCs know. This leads to successes and my players have stopped trying to "guess what the GM is up to" and now focus on "the PCs solving the puzzle". BUT AS A GM YOU HAVE GOT TO REMEMBER TO MAKE THEM ROLL WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR PCS TRY SOMETHING.

Ghost

Oh, I should add:

I think the general gaming community has dozens of kinds of gamers. You may sample a number of gamers and find that they simply did gaming differently. Some...

might come from groups where player lore of the monster manual or D&D systems metagaming was normal and encouraged
hardcore "if your character didnt learn this then they need to find it out themselves" players (me)
Dice arent necessary to solving puzzles
Dice ARE necessary to solving puzzles
If you can guess what the GM is up to then you limit the risks to your PC

Stuff like that. So my advice is to always be clear how rolls and resolutions to "dungeons" or "puzzles" will be handled. If youre up front about it them people can prepare to roll or may not just start wildly theorizing and guessing answers when they know that they need to have the PC investigate it.

Ganymede

@Ghost said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

If you are playing a role, then should your decisions for the character be based entirely from the perspective of the character itself?

This is a matter of personal choice.

I have been able to solve this issue by focusing on perception/knowledge rolls to help feed information or determine what the PCs know. This leads to successes and my players have stopped trying to "guess what the GM is up to" and now focus on "the PCs solving the puzzle".

This is a matter of GM fiat. This is unrelated to the dilemma identified, which is not really a dilemma in my opinion. No matter which way a player decides, it is a matter for the GM to decide how success on tasks shall be determined and how conflict will get resolved.

If you, the GM, want a player to roll to see if his character knows not to hit a rust monster with a sword, you have the right to ask; if otherwise, then the player decides that outcome. If the player complains that her character knows not to hit the rust monster with a metal weapon, and that she should not have to make a roll, you, the GM, can determine if the proffered explanation is sufficient or not.

Not really seeing a problem, sorry.

Ghost

@Ganymede said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

If you are playing a role, then should your decisions for the character be based entirely from the perspective of the character itself?

This is a matter of personal choice.

I wholly disagree.

If you're running a game and 3 players are using OOC/Player knowledge to solve problems and 3 other players are taking the time to build what their character does or doesnt know, then your game has a problem (or will soon, as the 3 players who are focusing on the PC's perspective begin to feel like the other 3 are metagaming).

You would essentially have 3 players powergaming it and 3 other players taking a slower, more methodical approach.

You absolutely want to try to make sure all players are using similar playbooks to solve IC issues.

This shouldn't be a matter of personal choice but an expectation set and policed by the GM. Preference? Sure, people can have a preference, but dealer calls the game.

Ganymede

@Ghost said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

If you're running a game and 3 players are using OOC/Player knowledge to solve problems and 3 other players are taking the time to build what their character does or doesnt know, then your game has a problem.

I agree, but my previous response was a direct one to the question of whether a player's decisions for a character be based entirely from the character's perspective. As you point out, players have different preferences.

You would essentially have 3 players powergaming it and 3 other players taking a slower, more methodical approach.

You absolutely want to try to make sure all players are using similar playbooks to solve IC issues.

Sure, you do, but this is a staff issue, not a player issue. Either staff has failed to set their expectations clearly or failed to enforce the same. And I clearly agree that a player should follow whatever staff decides is the way to do things. You'll note that my ultimate conclusion is directly in line with your position.

Not sure on what you're actually disagreeing with me.

Ghost

@Ganymede Fair 'nuff. I think we are speaking the same language here

Arkandel

@Ghost In my experience the question of "what, exactly, do Players In General know about <X>?" has rarely been sufficiently answered.

However that's not the most important element here, IMHO. The real issue is the expectations gap between what some players want in terms of their IC/OOC separation compared to others. Maybe I'm hardcore about my bard's knowledge of the world and thus I play him as not knowing what a mimic is or even that such monsters exist; however does that stance bind other players? Are you borderline cheating by assuming your character has heard of things that can take the form of a chest and attack when he tries to open it?

I don't believe addressing this issue is a trivial or straight-forward task because it involves communication, which rarely is.

Ganymede

@Ghost said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

Fair 'nuff. I think we are speaking the same language here.

Right, we are.

However --

-- keep in mind that many, many, many MUSH players don't really like it when staff tells them what their PCs know or do not know. Clear expectations hardly ever seem so to a person who is adamant of their vision of their own character.

Experience tells me to simply let players determine what they know or do not know for most situations, like the rust monster. When it comes to knowing the solution to a problem that is central to a scene or plot, however, that's a different issue.

silverfox

I know it's not logical but I get REALLY upset when //I// misunderstand something that once it's explained to me, my character WOULDN'T have understood. I feel like I failed my character and it shatters the immersion completely.

I really appreciate when people realize that It's me-the-player fucking up and lets me fix it so everything can stay IC. Little things, fine, whatever, I can roll. Big theme related things? Nope. Anxiety goes through the roof and I almost can't keep going.

Auspice

@silverfox With so many personalities... It's so hard to balance.

I've encountered people who rail so hard at 'being wrong' that they get incredibly upset about it. You can approach it as being helpful, wanting to make sure no wires got crossed, and it becomes the end of the world.

That's an extreme case, but I wanted to present the opposite end of the spectrum. There's everything in between. From your being super grateful to the guy who thinks everyone is out to get him and it was all a big plot just to make him look bad.

Me? I'm often grateful but I'll fight the anxiety over fucking up and wring my hands and worry and and....

So yeah. It's a really really hard thing as an ST / staffer. When I know the player well enough to know how they'd react, I'd know how to approach them. If I don't know them at all? I don't know where on the reaction line they'd land.