I want to tell you something...but I won't.

[the Jester]

I understand his reasoning, but it leads to a pitfall. If the players are stuck and not doing something you think is obvious, it is probably because they are missing a piece of information that should be obvious.

Well, as I said, if the issue is information that the pcs have but the players are overlooking, give it to them. However:

The missing information could even be "obvious actions you can take here"

It may not be considered that the NPC could have teleported out
It may not be considered that a search for tracks would yield anything

If the players do not even think of either of those points, they could sit there being stuck over an obvious detail that is action oriented, and thus barred from GM discussion.

Those are not examples of information that they are missing. Those are examples of actions that the pcs could take. It's entirely different, IMHO. And there's a big difference between stuff the pcs can see and inferences that they can make.

If the players are truly missing the obvious actions they could take, pointing out the facts of the obvious choice seems just as valid as pointing out obvious details.

Not to me. The pcs' actions are theirs to decide. If they overlook something obvious during an investigation- not something that their pcs know, but something that they fail to pick up on- it is absolutely not my role as dm to clue them in.

There is no point in a mystery adventure if you're giving them the answers, for example.

One method that might work is to phrase things in the form of questions. Thus, you are not forcing anything on the players, merely opening their minds to consider things. "Would you guys like the search the area for clues?" or "Why haven't you guys searched the area for clues?"

Again, I would never, ever, ever do this. It's the same thing as saying "You need to search the area" with only the thinnest veneer of "no it's not" spread on top of it.

There have been many times in my campaign where the pcs missed treasure, magic items, or even vital clues by not searching an area. SO BE IT. That's on them, not on me.

Note that I absolutely do not follow the philosophy that the pcs should always win every encounter, solve every mystery, find every bit of loot and discover every secret door. I am absolutely fine with the pcs missing the secret door that leads to the prince in stasis; I am absolutely fine with the pcs throwing up their hands and saying, "We can't find the emerald; screw this, let's go talk to that merchant who wants to hire us to take out the pirates instead." Heck, just Saturday night the pcs missed a magic item by failing to search an area.

One of my big issues with story-driven games is the frequent absolute unwillingness to let the pcs miss anything. The "vital clue" isn't so vital if the dm is willing to let the murderer get away with murder if the pcs don't find it. Maybe later they'll run up against him again.

If nothing else, you may get an explanation of their thinking, which may explain why they didn't consider searching. They may have stated a similar intent previously but in a way that you did not parse to mean the same thing, and thus gave them a negative result. As such, they thought they already did it and you said it didn't work.

Now, this kind of thing is an issue when it happens- but clear communication doesn't require the dm to suggest things to the party; it requires him to be a good listener, to be clear with the players as to what happens and what they've done.

 

[delericho]

If it truly is obvious, then don't ask for a roll - just tell them.

If it is not that obvious, such that you have asked for a roll, and then all the PCs fail the roll, then don't tell them - I guess they just weren't paying enough attention. Also, no more hints, no 'subtle' clues; the dice have spoken

And if some of the players have already figured it out, then good for them. They can therefore use that information.

 

[anest1s]

this is good. You should also consider how to handle obvious, non-facts.

The OP"s example of "So you want to..." shouldn't be done. Never tell the players what their PC wants to do. it's bad phrasing that can set players off because you are telling them what their PC wants to do.

With the example I meant that I add the "in case someone left by foot" part to the "I want to search for tracks" of the player. Implying that someone could leave by other means.

Except if I am missing the point, and you mean that I shouldn't confirm what the player just said with the "So you want to..." wording but with something else?

Those are not examples of information that they are missing. Those are examples of actions that the pcs could take. It's entirely different, IMHO. And there's a big difference between stuff the pcs can see and inferences that they can make.

True, they aren't bits of information. They are obvious(?) things the players never thought. That can lead the PC to certain actions.

If the wizard forgets to cast detect magic is something else and I am not suggesting to tell him to do so. But if no one even thought that magic may be involved, the game will stall for no reason.

(wow my example couldn't be worse )

 

[the Jester]

True, they aren't bits of information. They are obvious(?) things the players never thought. That can lead the PC to certain actions.

Again, my point is, as the dm it isn't my place to think for the players or direct them. It is to adjudicate the results of their actions.

If the wizard forgets to cast detect magic is something else and I am not suggesting to tell him to do so. But if no one even thought that magic may be involved, the game will stall for no reason.

Only if not detecting magic will stall the entire game.

Again, what's wrong with "Damn it, the bad guys got away!" once in a while? I would suggest that there are other adventures out there to be had, even if the party fails to achieve "victory" in one (whatever that means!).

 

[anest1s]

Only if not detecting magic will stall the entire game.

Yes, my example was bad

Again, what's wrong with "Damn it, the bad guys got away!" once in a while? I would suggest that there are other adventures out there to be had, even if the party fails to achieve "victory" in one (whatever that means!).

Nothing wrong with that. It just feels unnatural that for example a wizard could forget that "hey, there is magic too".

(Ok some times the DM doesn't want all the encounters he has planned to go unused, but not me.)
____________________

Anyway, I don't mind for whatever reason someone might want to tell something to the players. I bet one could even try to revive a forgotten hook or something.

I just wonder if there is a safe way to do so, without stealing the spotlight from the players.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sometimes the players are missing something that the DM thinks its obvious.

He asks them to roll a Wisdom/Intelligence check, and if they roll above lets say 5, or 10 he tells them the obvious thing.

It gets weird for the DM if they all roll below 5.

Then if it is something so obvious that the players had figured it out already, and they just kept silent about it, it feels like the DM just stole their idea.

However there is no point to have the game stall for 1 hour until the players notice the obvious. And if a char with 18 wis/int is in the game, it is reasonable that the char should be smarter than the player.

I try to just tell the players the obvious things ("So you want to search for tracks in case someone left by foot, and you want to ask the victim some questions" - it is kinda implied that one could also teleport out etc) and have them roll for obscure details there is no way they would notice at a much higher DC.

How you handle situations where you want to tell your players something, but you feel you shouldn't?

Or you feel it is ok just telling?

How would you feel about your DM doing that?

As said, any information you definitely want to give, just give. But it's worth pointing out that a game can only stall in this manner if you've already decided where it absolutely has to go and precisely how it's going to get there. If the group, GM included, is open to setting goals that can allow for any number of paths, then a game doesn't really stall just because the party doesn't find out some information in the expected manner (or at all.). If it is only the GM who has the goal in mind and without the information he wishes to impart the player characters don't even know they have a goal, then the game isn't really stalling either because in the characters' eyes they were just going anywhere and still are. When characters don't know where they are going the only way they know it has stalled in the GM's eyes is when the GM becomes frustrated or flustered.

There's all sorts of information the GM doesn't share with players but it shouldn't be looked upon through that lens. The players should be setting goals and then seeking information through their own actions, of their own volition, and sometimes that information is going to be difficult or even impossible to garner. Sometimes they will need a backup plan. But when they finally achieve their goal, if they do, the success will be the sweeter for it. Most people know a tin cup or a participation trophy when they see it. They aren't really happy with the type of game where everything is handed to them, where they know failure isn't an option.

 

[Janx]

Well, as I said, if the issue is information that the pcs have but the players are overlooking, give it to them. However:



Those are not examples of information that they are missing. Those are examples of actions that the pcs could take. It's entirely different, IMHO. And there's a big difference between stuff the pcs can see and inferences that they can make.

I think you're mistaking my crappy examples using content from this thread for my point.

I don't want to give away action ideas to players either.

But some actions are SO FREAKING OBVIOUS, that you gotta wonder why the players aren't doing it already.

Odds are good that they aren't doing it because of a misunderstanding or lack of OBVIOUS information.

Even the advice about giving them obvious information is primarly noticeable by the player's actions. When the players do dumb things, it may be because they are missing something obvious.

actions and information are tied together. Players actions are really in reaction to the information you have given them.

I don't have perfect advice on how to point out obvious actions (which to me can be information). I simply point out that it might be part of the problem and is tricky to solve without giving away too much.

Maybe this is a better contrived example. The players are chasing the bad guy, who enters and old abandoned ruin. The party is just far enough behind him, they can't tell which way he went from the first room. You describe the place as having a stone floor. The players assume that means no tracks would be found. You had decided the floor had enough dust and such that the NPC could be tracked. The players however sit and debate about which doorway to take for 30 minutes and NEVER mention "tracking"

The problem is a lack of action, particularly a pretty simple and obvious action. Taking the action isn't a freebie (it's a skill check, the party could fail). The source of the problem is a lack of information that tracking is even a possibility because of the conditions.

I think in this example, the GM's mental process could connect the dots to "why don't these idiots just use Tracking" to "maybe these guys don't know there's a trail they can track" to "BTW, the floor has a light layer of dust on it that seems to be disturbed."

I posit that not all situations that could come up are this obvious, but the GM is sitting there, knowing the inherently obvious action the party could take, but the party doesn't have a clue. I suspect its less of a problem if the party is doing SOMETHING, but it is a huge problem when nothing is going on. Throwing a monster at the party doesn't really help anything, it just gives them something to do for 6 rounds.

Also note, I'm not talking about the complex actual solution to a puzzle or problem. I'm talking being brainblocked on something so trivial and obvious that is holding up game play.

 

[Janx]

With the example I meant that I add the "in case someone left by foot" part to the "I want to search for tracks" of the player. Implying that someone could leave by other means.

Except if I am missing the point, and you mean that I shouldn't confirm what the player just said with the "So you want to..." wording but with something else?

I meant the latter. Phrasing like "your PC wants XYZ" is like a command. And the GM shouldn't be commanding the player to do anything.

True, they aren't bits of information. They are obvious(?) things the players never thought. That can lead the PC to certain actions.

If the wizard forgets to cast detect magic is something else and I am not suggesting to tell him to do so. But if no one even thought that magic may be involved, the game will stall for no reason.

(wow my example couldn't be worse )

I actually do agree with Jester's philosophy of not telling the PCs what they can do, but where he describes that as an absolute, I see it as a general rule where the MIGHT be a situation that I can't envision now, but would be trivialy solved by recognizing the situation as an exception to the general rule.

Perhaps its as stupid as this example: The party chases the bad guy to the stable where they stop and watch the bad guy ride off on his horse. They are standing next to their own horses that they rode in on. They then stand there and talk amongst themselves about how are they going to catch up to the bad guy. There are many ways to phrase it, but it all comes down to "Hey dummies, why don't you ride YOUR horses that you are standing next to to chase the bad guy."

 

[howandwhy99]

Let's differentiate here. There's stuff the players simply have not figured out yet and there's stuff the PCs haven't had a chance to perceive.

If it's the PC being able to hear a sound or see something, then tell them whenever possible. Perhaps you as DM don't feel the players remember what you told them their characters were sensing? I'd repeat it and chalk that up to a clue. No big deal.

If it's the players not putting 2 and 2 together, than don't help them any more than what I just said above. A friendly reminder of the current situation can be helpful, but the players need to discern the rest of the game themselves alone.

So I definitely advise against INT or WIS rolls or Idea checks or any other mechanic built to stop refereeing and force direct aiding of the players. (That means avoiding leading questions too. I try to only ask questions as an NPC or to clarify what a player said).

The game shouldn't really stall either because the players don't take some course of action. That's scripting the players actions for them IMO. High INT scores only define PC abilities gained by the player, like speaking multiple languages. They aren't what is expected of the player to perform.

How you handle situations where you want to tell your players something, but you feel you shouldn't?

Or you feel it is ok just telling?

How would you feel about your DM doing that?

I do my best to never tell my players how to play or what's behind the screen. I do not feel it is okay to just tell them, "You should go left to find the treasure." I'd rather not have a DM do that either for me.

 

[Quickleaf]

If the wizard forgets to cast detect magic is something else and I am not suggesting to tell him to do so. But if no one even thought that magic may be involved, the game will stall for no reason.

If a lack of information is causing the game to stall, then my experience is that it's up to the DM to be more forthcoming....or the players just forgot it.

My rule is: Show, show, show.

What this means is provide information the players *need* automatically, but do it three times without a "plot exposition NPC."

For example, take your "magic is involved" situation. First the PCs might notice a certain NPC gazing into a glowing blue box. Second they kill some monsters and recover a scroll with a map of the town and arcane blue runes. Third the wizard feels her hair go on end when crossing a certain bridge outside town near the NPC's house.