DMs Advice - Player's bad assumptions

[MarkB]

Your original question, stripped of the Knowledge checks sidetrack, was basically "What do I do about it when players make the wrong assumption?"

There are only two real solutions to that problem - you can, as N'raac and I suggested, change the players' assumptions to match the situation, or as Gilladian and Hussar suggested, you can change the situation to match their assumptions.

Now, you can apply varying degrees of subtlety to either of those solutions, but in the end, those are your choices (aside from the option you started from, of just sitting back and letting the players proceed down a deductive dead end). Which one you take will depend upon your particular DMing style.

 

[N'raac]

Concisely ansd well put, MarkB.

@N'raac First, yes the idea would be something along that, but the players just fought and fought and fought and eventually killed the monsters. (remember this was just an example of the issue I was talking about, I haven't actually played this scene with players)

That's also a possible solution.

second, ignoring the Knowledge check which seems to have become a large portion of the thread and I accept that I was unaware of that, the party could Open Lock on the door once the security system had been disarmed (or do it before but with an increased DC and without being able to Take 10/20) or Dispel the security system (assuming they chose to do that, but again I am not going to tell them "you can dispel this trap to disable it temporarily" and maybe the Wizard doesn't have the spell prepared)

Sure. They have to figure out how to deal with the problem. Maybe that means a strategic retreat and changing the spell load (Clerics can dispel too, BTW). What if no one put any, or many, ranks into Arcana?

Thirdly, The "What makes you think the Dwarves built this" seems good but I am not good at coming up with subtle nudges, I would quite like to be able to do that but either the players ignore what I tell them or it is the same as saying "yea the runes are Arcane and you need Spellcraft checks to disarm them" which may be fine for some groups, in fact that seems to be how everyone plays and that might be the problem.

I'd say it should be pretty easy for those with the appropriate knowledge to identify the fact that runes are arcane.

Finally, if the player could go away and look for the information in a book then s/he just learns the information, if s/he goes to a random library then I would ask for a Gather Information check or some such to determine if s/he can find the correct book (not every library has every book in existence).

No guarantee there is even such a book. And no guarantee that, with the answer in front of them, they pick up on it, at least in my view.

Though I never said the players weren't happy with the game (obviously getting TPKd or just standing in a room for hours won't be fun for anyone)

If they are happy, what's the problem?

I wonder if as you are describing the system (which I clearly have House Ruled), as the party walk into a big room and I begin explaining what is in the room, do I have to roll everyone's Knowledge checks (in each relevant fields) before explaining what they know and that would be all they know, meaning no more Knowledge checks regardless of if the player examines something specific?

I think if there is something immeidately obvious to which a Knowledge skill is relevant, it should be rolled immediately. Would you allow the players Perception rolls to notice a hidden assassin, or do they have to state they are looking for something? If they look for treasure, does that mean they don't get a roll to notice the hidden assassin?

 

[N'raac]

Speaking of failed deductions, I recall an old module featuring hordes of Undead who, for some reason, were incapable of perceiving Paladins. The first action taken (against a host of Skeletons) was the Paladin attempting to Turn them. He should have Dispelled a bunch - but they can't perceive him, so no skeletons collapsed. The Cleric's player says "Great - Undead immune to Turning". They sure took a lot of damage fighting increasingly powerful Undead that they never again attempted to turn. Well, they all did except the Paladin - for some reason, they never attacked him...

As I recall, someone did finally notice there was never an attack called against the Paladin.

The same scenario saw a deliberate "faulty assumption". They did not find what they were looking for. They searched EVERY 10' wall space for secret doors (accidentally overlooking one...twice!) Finally, the one Elf's player said "I know no one wants to say it, but I think we have to go there", pointing at the one overlooked section. Which has 6 inch letters in green flame spelling out a dire warning - visible only to elves. "How was I supposed to know the rest of you couldn't see it? They're SIX INCH FLAMING LETTERS! I just assumed no one wanted to find out what was back there if we could avoid it."

 

[Gilladian]

@Gilladian I wonder if either you have misunderstood something in my post or I am misunderstanding you, it is my fault because I have decided that the runes MUST be Arcane (@Hussar mentioned that and I think that having such a complex security feature inside their own house seems peculiar at best, bizarre at most) rather than decide there are runes and let the party "secretly" decide what type of runes they are? (I am sure I am misunderstanding that but I don't understand what you mean by "I have decided what the best option is")

I think we're misunderstanding each other. You, as DM, knowing that the runes are arcane, is fine. What isn't fine (in my personal opinion, only) is you having decided that, since the runes are arcane, the only way for the PCs to defuse them and stop the waves of elementals from arriving, is to then decide to make an arcane knowledge check, succeed at it, and discover the way to disable them.

IMHO, as the DM, you can decide they're arcane runes, created by the Archmage, and not part of the original defenses the dwarves built. But HOW the PCs decide to DEAL with the runes and the elementals, is totally up to them, and you should have no preconceived notions of what they're going to do. If they make a decision to use their arcane knowledge, super. If they decide to let the thief use disable device, super too. If they get confused, can't decide what to do, and end up fighting, well, that's their choice. If they try some wacky alternate method, like rock to mud to deface the walls - as DM, it is your role to fairly and faithfully decide what that would do to the runes. NOT to say to yourself "they're not doing what I decided they should do! It won't work!!"

Maybe I'm totally misreading your intentions, but it does seem in your initial description, that you had thought of the "one proper" way to negate the trap, and you were irritated that they weren't figuring out "your" solution to the problem. If I'm wrong, then great... but you may want to be wary of accidentally falling into that trap.

 

[Omegaxicor]

The last three posts have been very helpful, Firstly @MarkB That is essentially the question I was asking but I asked it badly, do people generally tell the players "you're doing it wrong" or just leave them (I accept that if possible ANYTHING the players do that might work, does, just to get them through)

Secondly, @N'raac in the large post there were only two questions but 1) if the players had no ranks in Arcana then they may not get very far in their career as adventurers but they just wouldn't be able to read the runes, Dwarven, Arcane or whatever but they could have solved the puzzle by damaging the runes, of course they could have accidently damaged a meaningless rune or caused the spell to release Arcane energy into the face of the PC.

2) The players are happy but unsuccessful which is annoying for me and eventually the party because if a player is bored we can work around it but if I get bored the night collapses (that sounds stuck up but it is true)

3) now that example is better than mine because it doesn't focus too much on a skill, what would you do with those players, if the Undead were "never-ending" or the battle, due to dice, turned against them? Do you tell the players "it is unlikely that Undead would be IMMUNE to turning", I have to ask how the Undead are made oblivious to the Paladin, maybe he cast Hide from Undead, in which case would you remind the players "How long does the Paladin's Hide from Undead last, ah another two hours at this level" or whatever, or do you just let them be beaten because it was their choice?

and I love the idea that the Elf is standing there "Well we are really going to HAVE to go there despite what we all think...wait you can't see that neon sign flashing 'The party must go in here' I didn't know" it's brilliant!

@Gilladian yes we are misunderstanding each other, as I have just mentioned, I don't care what the players do but if I foresee a failed quest, TPK or whatever bad situation (such as the death of a character near the start of a long quest chain before he can revived easily) then what do I do, help them or leave them?

When I made the example, Arcane runes, I knew they would need an Knowledge Arcana check but when the players decide to start using Diplomacy on the Elementals and continue to try to find a way to negotiate (without summoning an Earth elemental to talk to them, which I wouldn't see coming but I would allow) rather than dealing with the source of the trap. I know that there are several ways to avoid the trap but firstly they have to identify the trap.

Thank you for clearing that up because that is a very important point to avoid, I did fall into that trap with the first few situations I made and it works out fine while the players follow the path you expect but the first time they don't everything collapses.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't care what the players do but if I foresee a failed quest, TPK or whatever bad situation (such as the death of a character near the start of a long quest chain before he can revived easily) then what do I do, help them or leave them?

This is a much discussed issue. Playstyles that use long adventure paths, complex character generation, and long-term NPC relationship building are very vulnerable to PC death. For those playstyles some way to avoid or mitigate death improves the game - easy resurrection; Warhammer-esque fate points; more forgiving death's door mechanics; or ruling that the PCs don't die when they're defeated but are captured, disarmed or some such.

There are other playstyles such as sandbox pre-3e D&D where death isn't a problem. If the PCs die due to a player/DM misunderstanding, then they just die, and the players roll up new PCs with which to assault the DM's mega-dungeon.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If the party has an arcane caster, I would point towards his player and say: "Your team mates are barking up the wrong tree; you see that this doohicky is blatantly arcane."

If the party has a dwarf, I'd do the same, only reversed.

Consider it this way...

When you see a sign that says, "Danger: High Voltage Fence!" do you have to stop and think about whether the sign is in english, or do you simply read the sign? Someone versed in Arcane knowledge probably has the same reaction to arcane runes that are part of a security system...

DING!

The runes will be in a given language. Either someone in the party can read that language or not. If not then its just a bunch of scrawlings and the party has a tough fight coming unless they flee. If someone can read the runes then their nature may provide clues toward a solution.

Players make bad assumptions until they learn to do otherwise. As a DM it is your job to make sure the players are not making those assumptions in the absence of information that they should have.

So if the players have all the info that they should, let them come up with their own conclusions, don't play the game for them. In this case informing any player capable of reading the glowing runes what language they were written in would be providing adequate information. As long as you did that then all is good. It isn't the DMs job to draw conclusions for the players.

 

[N'raac]

Secondly, @N'raac in the large post there were only two questions but 1) if the players had no ranks in Arcana then they may not get very far in their career as adventurers but they just wouldn't be able to read the runes, Dwarven, Arcane or whatever but they could have solved the puzzle by damaging the runes, of course they could have accidently damaged a meaningless rune or caused the spell to release Arcane energy into the face of the PC.

The possibility of different groups having different skill sets leads me to consider a varierty of options for dealing with the problem. From your description above, the players JUST HAD to consider using Knowledge: Arcana. From your comments here, other options exist. So let them use the options they choose, and succeed or fail accordingly.

2) The players are happy but unsuccessful which is annoying for me and eventually the party because if a player is bored we can work around it but if I get bored the night collapses (that sounds stuck up but it is true)

So why does dealing with a different approach than the one you envisioned crush your interest to that extent? And how are they now unsuccessful when your last comment indicated they could achieve success in lots of other ways.

3) now that example is better than mine because it doesn't focus too much on a skill, what would you do with those players, if the Undead were "never-ending" or the battle, due to dice, turned against them?

That's up to them, not me. They can certainly back off. Or they can choose to die against an unending horde because they are too stupid to consider retreat. If they were "never-ending", I might point out that their numbers don't seem to be diminishing any. They can then work out other options. An INT roll to realize in the heat of combat that they NEVER attack the Paladin might be in order. Back in the camp, thats a likely eventual realization.

Do you tell the players "it is unlikely that Undead would be IMMUNE to turning", I have to ask how the Undead are made oblivious to the Paladin, maybe he cast Hide from Undead, in which case would you remind the players "How long does the Paladin's Hide from Undead last, ah another two hours at this level" or whatever, or do you just let them be beaten because it was their choice?

The situation was an aspect of the location and scenario, and not of any player action or ability, so it was up to them to assess. If they choose to keep fighting against impossible odds, then they made that choice. There is a limit to how much can be done to save the PC's from player stupidity. Where there may be a difficult puzzle to solve, allowing the players the ability to retreat helps - assuming they will take it. If they stand there and let wave after wave of elementals crush them to bloody pulps, then maybe some ranks in Common Sense might be prudent for their new characters.

rather than dealing with the source of the trap. I know that there are several ways to avoid the trap but firstly they have to identify the trap.

Why? Can't they kill off all the elementals, or figure a way through the door, and past the trap, without figuring out the connection to the runes?

Thank you for clearing that up because that is a very important point to avoid, I did fall into that trap with the first few situations I made and it works out fine while the players follow the path you expect but the first time they don't everything collapses.[/QUOTE]

 

[Blackwarder]

Now firstly I know that 99% of bad player assumptions are down to poor DM planning (maybe not 99% but a portion, to be determined later) but there are times where players see something and latch on to it and go in the wrong direction. An example of this is:

"You enter a Dwarven Stronghold that has been taken over by a Human Archmage a century or so ago. You reach a large door, immediately the whole room glows red and Earth Elementals begin to appear (in rising numbers and in power)"

now you have two options:

1) Fight 10 waves of enemies
OR
2) Use Knowledge (Arcana) to try to unlock the door
and the player's choice
3) Try Knowledge (Dungeoneering) (best I could think of off the top of my head) to try to see how the Dwarves would unlock the door. (and then I roll them a 1 openly or anything secretly)

Now the bad assumption is ASSUMING one way or the other but in this case assuming the trap is a security feature of the Dwarves and not the Archmage.

Now this is only an example but do I tell the players "No it's not a dwarven security system" flatly and without the usual DM's "you don't really know" edge OR do I just let them die in Earth Elementals? (or if there is a Player's Method (you know how they ALWAYS pick option 3) then I would still like to know what you would do to deal with this)

The players suffered through several pointless fights before expending a lot of resources and losing a party member before killing all the enemies, this meant that the Archmage was too strong for them and killed all but one party member (I fudged the second-to-last guys death because I didn't expect anyone to live and then the last guy rolls a 20 )

EDIT: throughout the thread the example became a large question which wasn't what I intended. The question is: if your players were stuck doing something in a corner and ignoring the door, do you say to them "There is nothing you can do with that focus more on the door that is unlocked and unguarded and waiting for you to go through for the past six hours! " or just let them stay in their corner figuring out what to do with the corner?

This is where things like skills and checks just get into the way, if it was up to me I would have just told one of the magic user players that they realize that the lock is probably magical in nature or a dwarf player realize that the door is a fine Dwarven craftmanship but the dwarfish mechanism don't play a part in here.

If you intended to have the players realize that the lock is magical in nature just point it in the right way, if you want them to know that there are ten waves comming put ten glyphs on the wall and every time a new wave is summoned a rune grows dim, that sort of stuff.

My point is that if you want your player to draw the right assumptions you need to give them more clues into what going on and be prepared to steer them in the right direction when they lose track, but you should also roll with player assumption and be prepared to change things on the fly to accommodate player assumptions.

Hope that helped!

Warder

 

[Omegaxicor]

What crushes my interest is when the players aren't doing anything, they continue to suggest the same thing, for example "Well the Dwarves must have had a way to command the Elementals so we will have to just kill them because we don't know how to disable the Dwarven runes"

They can kill the elementals and walk through the door but that takes a lot of resources and the players would either continue on to their death or retreat and have the town burned down (or whatever the cost of failure is)

Common sense is an easy fallback but if the battle isn't going to kill them but just deplete their resources enough to have the next fight kill them, since they don't know what the next fight will be

EDIT: [MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION] that is helpful for the example, and more over I think that I have been too "hands-off", I give the players all the information they need and then if they do the wrong thing, I try and help them but I am not telling them what to do and it sounds like that is what needs to be done.