As advertised.
If your players misinterpret clues to a mystery do you do anything to correct them? Do you let them run with it and hope that they'll eventually figure it out? Do you tell them out of character what happened? Do you reiterate what they've already ignored? Do you laugh maniacally on this inside?
In my game a cultist was strangled by a skeleton when the cultist opened the sarcophagus. I clearly described that the strangulation marks were from skeletal hands, I said something along the lines of "you can tell he was killed by a skeleton based on the strangulation marks coming for a skeletal hand." But the player decided that didn't make sense because "the skeleton would've attacked with his sword" even after I reiterated it was a skeletal hand that strangled the cultist. Now the group is trying to figure out which hired henchman of the cult is a traitor. (Ultimately it shouldn't take anything in the wrong direction, but they're looking for something that doesn't exist due to an assumption made based on game mechanics rather than story.)
I would not give more misleading clues. That is very like tricking the players and likely to be. I think I would resent it.
Clue and puzzle type scenarios can be... difficult.
They tend to be structured clue A leads to conclusion A and clue B leads to conclusion B.
But that conclusion A follows from clue A is often not clear to anyone except to the person who came up with the scenario. Your case Warped Savant seems fairly clear, but not every detective scenario is. And it can be totally unclear to the players what is an important clue and what is an incidental detail.
In reality a significant event, like a murder, will have an explosion of clues around it in various directions.
So what I would do in your situation Warped Savant is let the players investigate and have them come across other clues leading in the right direction. If the PCs do some sensible investigation, give them clues.
If they are really determined to go down the wrong path, you could have some NPC point out that the strangulation looks like it was done by a skeletal hand and when they say as skeleton would have used a sword, reply "How do you know that? Do you Know the skeleton even had a sword."
That is really telling the PCs the answer, but if they have been running around following false trails for hours, which can easily happen in detective type scenarios, it is better than having them keep on that direction for a few more hours, probably getting really frustrated.
This thread raises interesting questions. I have often had problems and frustration as a player for the reasons set out at by me earlier. And as a GM I have found them hard to run. The PCs often don't reason the way I expected them to and can get struck on the wrong track. I have to think up ways to give them clues.
Give them more clues, clarifying clues.
My experience with clues are that many GMs think their clues are clever and want players to appreciate their brilliance. But most players just want to have fun and aren't there for brain teasers. Especially ones that rely on...eclectic and sometimes specious lines of thought.
If you actually want players to solve something, don't give them crazy clues.
If you don't, be honest with your self about and don't actually provide them clues.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you gave them was not a clue. You outright told them something and they chose not to believe you. Even after you told them again they ignored it. In cases like this let them chase down a wild goose chase.
It may be too late now, but you could have mentioned that the skeleton may not have had a sword. Just because the stat block in the bestiary has a skeleton using a sword does not mean that every skeleton has to use one, skeletons also have claw attacks.
Give the skeleton extra abilities to make it better at strangling things. When the group does eventually fight it have it try to strangle people dealing more damage this way then a sword does.
They might complain that the skeleton you're using isn't the one from the bestiary and that's ok. As the DM you're allowed to make changes. It should help them see past the statblock next time when you dispense information like this.
In this case in particular, yeah. The player was attempting to use out of game knowledge to come to a conclusion. If there had been a sword around, or evidence of one, they maybe but yeah no.
In general though, if players come to the wrong conclusion from clues, as a GM I know there are two options. Let them be wrong. Generally I do this if I'm setting up some sort of twist, or if the evidence I left was a red herring anyway. It leaves the players surprised when done right, or else they hit their head and have a "why didn't I see that coming" moment. I'm also very good at predicting my players and know where and when I can do such things.
The alternative, let them be right. Flexibility is a very important skill as a GM, and if the clues you've left lead them to something else, than make it that something else. They feel smart and no one needs to know it was ever not the case. In your particular scenario, you could do it both. It was a skeleton but it was a trap set by one of the other cultists, perhaps using a contingent Grasping Corpse spell, and afterwards they took the skeleton away to set up the look of an undead threat.
In the end, it's up to you. I would not reward the metagaming aspect if their conclusion as a few people have pointed out, because it is just flat wrong. You could set it up they need to return to the scene of the crime when their rabbit hole runs dry and find perhaps the skeleton's sword is discarded, or there's evidence in the sarcophagus that he never had one. A lack of cuts from a sword laying or shifting from the undead, or else the whole inside has nothing but claw marks from it trying to get out, lacking any evidence it had a sword. Questioning the cult could get them in trouble, but I believe there was a quest in Mass Effect 2 where it's one of those puzzles where you get a bunch of clues and are supposed to glean the culprit from them, only to find all of the clues were nonsense that led to nothing. Have them find suspicions from people that all lead nowhere, or at least one that would point them back to the crime scene. Maybe someone is missing a badge or ring that may have been lost at the crime scene.
Good advice, everyone, but a fair bit of it, sadly, doesn't apply. I'm not too concerned about it as it's not a mystery story and the players are headed in the right direction anyways, just with the wrong conclusion which may throw a slight spanner in the works in the next session or two.
Mostly I started this discussion because I'm curious to see what people do in these situations and because it's something I've never thought about and figure it's something that could come up in the next campaign I plan on running.
Now for me to comment on things everyone has said:
Andre Roy -- adding in suspicious people would likely throw players off of the trail way too much in most every mystery game.
Joynt Jezebel -- If I were to ever run a mystery I would be sure to have at least 3 ways to solve any portion of it otherwise you're setting your group (and yourself) up for failure. They knew the skeleton had a sword because they had already killed it. (The PCs are to go after the cultists as they stole something from the crypt. They're still headed there but thinking they have to investigate them and figure out who they hired or who the traitor is.)
Claxon -- As above, it was meant to have the PCs go after the cult, which they're doing but with the wrong mindset. (But they still know the cult is bad.)
Mysterious Stranger -- Yeah, they fought the skeleton first so knew it had a sword so that's why "it didn't make sense" for it to have strangled the cultist.
LordKailas -- It was a special skeleton anyways ;) (boss of the end of the first part of the adventure.)
Isaac Zephyr -- Player wasn't using OoC regarding the sword but is totally using metagame mechanic rules to determine what would most effectively kill the cultist. Thankfully the cultist was distinct enough that they're still able to find the cult even though they think there's more to what's going on. (Honestly, it's a fairly straightforward adventure but the player is paranoid and therefore assumes nothing is at it appears. Sometimes it's entertaining, sometimes it has the potential to create issues.)
If they fought the skeleton and the skeleton didn't try to strangle them, then it was a somewhat logical conclusion that the skeleton in question wasn't the killer. And just because it seemed like the cultist was strangled by the skeletal fingers doesn't mean that this one particular skeleton was the one responsible.
You could throw in some more information: "The cultist has an empty scabbard; maybe the skeleton took his sword after killing him."
You could, as has been suggested, let them be right, and throw in an alternative suspect.
You could just tell them that they're wrong.
Or you could just distract them from the question by giving them new stuff to think about.
Bold and hearty internal laughter is my first reaction, generally.
Then I toy with them a little bit. Add in some fluff to keep them chasing their tails.
If they get too far off course, I can always have a new occurrence leave new clues to get them back on track.
Or I can just change the scenario to match what they are pursuing, regardless of what I had originally planned.
Sometimes the table can provide the DM with some interesting ideas that are easy enough just to use it and run with it to whatever conclusion may come of it.
In your particular case, you can have them uncover a traitor in the cult that even you, as the DM, didn't know existed before they decided it did.
Maybe it is a spy that has infiltrated the cult for his own agenda. Maybe an opposing cult or organization.
In this sort of situation I would probably invent a traitor who betrayed the cult, and let the PCs figure out who it is after jumping through appropriate hoops, but have that person have absolutely nothing to do with the aforementioned strangulation. Which is not to say that "knowing this person" will not be of use to the party and that uncovering this information was a waste of time, it just wasn't specifically what the party wanted.
I always try to make my players "fail forward" which applies to both die rolls and roleplaying choices- if you make a mistake it should lead somewhere interesting, even if it's not where you wanted.
If they fought the skeleton and the skeleton didn't try to strangle them, then it was a somewhat logical conclusion that the skeleton in question wasn't the killer. And just because it seemed like the cultist was strangled by the skeletal fingers doesn't mean that this one particular skeleton was the one responsible.
That is a very good point and something I didn't foresee. (They fought the skeleton then found the sarcophagus and cultist.) If I had thought that the player would completely disregard what I had said I would've had the skeleton make a mocking comment about killing a PC with his bare hands or something.
I always try to make my players "fail forward" which applies to both die rolls and roleplaying choices
I try to do the same thing as well. In this case it was to lead them to the next part in the module, but there was more than one thing to point them to the next point so they've gone there anyways.
We'll see what happens with the imaginary traitor. Maybe an opportunity will present itself for me to add one in.
Story time;
the group (dnd 1st or 2nd ed) was 3 male humans, a female halfling and a female elf. We were going through a dungeon and kept encountering stuff (a map, magic items etc...) that the males could read/use but the females could not. We all assumed it was because the characters were female. Then we got to the end and it was a bunch of human racists who hated nonhumans and had nothing to do with gender. It was funny because the clues were in plain sight but we the players made the wrong assumption.
As long as you the DM are not making it worse, let them go with there misinterpretation...the Ohh moment should be good and memorable.
I'm not entirely sure how you could tell someone was strangled by a skeletal hand as opposed to a normal one. The marks that would be left would be fairly identical.
I'm not entirely sure how you could tell someone was strangled by a skeletal hand as opposed to a normal one. The marks that would be left would be fairly identical.
You sir/madam have not seen nearly enough bruises.
N-not that I have. *Casts Innocence*
It would be the lack of continuous bruising that gave away the skeleton hands versus hands with flesh.
Skeleton fingers would only leave bruises at the knuckles.
Whereas a hand with flesh leaves continuous bruising, just worse bruising at the knuckles.
I think.
Sounds like you're handling it right, sounds like real deep metagaming biting the PCs in the ass.
I mean... Does the party Fighter always use the same weapon? Even if this skeleton OFTEN uses a sword, is it IMPOSSIBLE to conceive that it may not have been wielding it's sword when the cultist opened the tomb, thus prompting it to just use it's hands vs a surprised defenseless target? Or even thru specific intent to not leave traces of sword wounds, or grabbing their throat per intent to silence them from raising a cry, or aesthetic/ritual implications in strangling?
It's clear they are viewing the sword as attached to a monster stat block, and simple minmax application of those stats as defining it's behavior, seeing everything as sum of generic mechanics, rather than games rules SERVING a fantasy reality, not dictating it. Of course the game expects a certain amount of cognizance of it's rules, for some reason characters maneuver to minimize AoO's for example. I think ideally, your players can learn to broaden their approach to play and step off their stat-blocks into the story more.
Not sure the best next step, have other evidence tying the skeleton to site of the crypt? Have mystic medium "read" the body to verify it was strangled by skeleton? (maybe have some distinctive characteristic to confirm specific skeleton) I mean, you didn't even intent it to be much of a mystery from what I can tell, as you straight up told them only for them to 2nd guess it, so "giving" them more info isn't disruptive. Really, since you think they aren't disrupting or deeply sabotaging their quest in general, it's about what will be most entertaining and interesting for you all. Maybe play it out in-game a bit longer until you can laugh out of character at their self-sabotage.
Keep adding more descriptions until they get it :P
Throw in a Scroll of Speak With Dead; that way, if they really care, they can find out the truth.
Honestly, it's a fairly straightforward adventure but the player is paranoid and therefore assumes nothing is at it appears.
This is the best kind of player for a GM! My players are a bit like that as well, and it makes my job as a GM immensely more easy - they turn a five-minute roleplay encounter into an hour of fun because they utterly mistrusted the teenage farmboy flirting up a female PC.
On the original topic, I don't see any problems - you want the PCs to go to the cult, they are going to the cult. Mission accomplished. You can have the cult do some obvious evil stuff, or you can have the cult invite the PCs in and then spring the trap (or anythign in between).
Regarding future campaigns or other situations: In mystery stories, the red herring (a deliberately misleading clue put into the story to misdirect the audience) is one of the oldest and most widespread techniques to turn the mystery from being too easy. In an RPG, as you've experienced, you don't actually need to do that - the players create their own red herrings. Unless they are completely lost, at which point you either prodive more clues or just change the story to match the player's expectation, everything is fine. Presuming the clues given are fair and rather easy to understand (cf. Claxon's post), misunderstood clues are basically a both natural and vital part of RPG mysteries. Unless you're GMing for children, in which case basically none of the above applies, and you should adjust your story so that whatever the players come up with becomes true and they can feel clever.
I said something along the lines of "you can tell he was killed by a skeleton based on the strangulation marks coming for a skeletal hand." But the player decided that didn't make sense because "the skeleton would've attacked with his sword" even after I reiterated it was a skeletal hand that strangled the cultist.
This is a case of either:
A) This player is incredibly tone-deaf.
B) You have previously given the player plenty of reasons to doubt your explanations.
One of these has a solution; the other...not so much.
I mean even if the GM has had a generous hand with the red herrings previously, "the skeleton did not strangle the victim, a skeleton can only use a sword" is a bizarre inference to make. I can see "well, maybe someone just wanted to make it look like a skeleton did it" but unless you view the GM's job as essentially being a computer which executes the algorithms in the rulebook/adventure, I don't get it at all.
What defines a skeleton is "undead, lacks flesh, brains" not "owns a sword". If this was my game, I would probably gently troll the player by having the party fight skeletons with maces, skeletons with spears, skeletons with lucerne hammers, skeletons with flindbars, skeletons with double dwarven waraxes, skeletons with gnomish battle ladders, etc. and never give a skeleton a sword ever again.