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

[griffonwing]

One thing that I would do.

Let us say that the PC need to know some very specific information in order to progress the campaign to the next phase. For example, the followed the Evil Priest down a hallway and into a room that he bolted shut. Upon bashing the door, they found the priest gone.

Let us also say that the PC's, every one of them, failed in their rolls. The thief found no hidden rooms/doors, the mage found no trace of magic, and everyone failed Observation (or equivalent). I would not give the full information, however, I would give a hint.

I would give them all an observation roll. The highest would just happen to barely see a pattern in the dust, covered with the party's footprints. Upon scrutiny, the mage (with a bonus since he knows where to look) would have a good chance to partial remnants of what looks to be a circle of some kind. Teleportation or summoning, he can't be sure. But this will be the start of more thinking.

Even if the priest used a teleportation wand or magic item, just the idea that a circle was in the room would still give the party the correct information...he might have teleported out.

 

[DragonLancer]

DL- yeah, I totally agree. Not that you have to do this every time, mind you. As H&W mentions, being wrong can be fun too. But, letting the players write your game for you is just so darned easy. I'm just too lazy.

Agreed. My example was just a case where what the players came up with was better than what I had.

 

[S'mon]

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"

I wouldn't tell them that, unless it was a brand new PC who might be unaware of a class power. If the PC is an expert tracker I might tell them about checking for tracks; if the PC is an inquisitor I might tell them about asking questions - but only the first time, and only with complete newbies.

OTOH I will remind them of genuinely obvious-in-game stuff they seem to have forgotten - "at dusk the goblins will wake up, so extended-resting in goblin town is probably not a great idea" - usually only if there is a possible problem with player metagaming overcoming common sense. In 4e I've seen players assume that because they are nearly out of healing surges, the GM will let them extended-rest and not be attacked. That's not how I GM, but some GMs do that, so it's fair to make sure we're all on the same page.

 

[anest1s]

I wouldn't tell them that, unless it was a brand new PC who might be unaware of a class power. If the PC is an expert tracker I might tell them about checking for tracks; if the PC is an inquisitor I might tell them about asking questions - but only the first time, and only with complete newbies.

Wizard: So no one saw someone getting in or out, and there is no-one in the room. Only way this happened is that the guards are lying.
Player 2: I want to track for footprints
Player 3: I want to ask the victims some questions
DM: Ok, so you (player2) want to search for tracks in case someone left by foot, and you (player3) want to ask the victim some questions. You (player2) go first.

Yeah I give combat advice when the player forgets to sneak attack 3rd time in a row and the other players start telling him what to do.

OTOH I will remind them of genuinely obvious-in-game stuff they seem to have forgotten - "at dusk the goblins will wake up, so extended-resting in goblin town is probably not a great idea" - usually only if there is a possible problem with player metagaming overcoming common sense. In 4e I've seen players assume that because they are nearly out of healing surges, the GM will let them extended-rest and not be attacked. That's not how I GM, but some GMs do that, so it's fair to make sure we're all on the same page.

I don't think you need to tell them that. After the first time you throw them something in their sleep they know it isn't safe. Then again, I never really played 4e.

 

[kitsune9]

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

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?

These are common communication issues. We have three parts--the communicator (DM), the channel (the method of communication), and the receiver (the players). We can have problems arise with any or all three parts which can make the dissemination of obvious facts to the players a difficult task.

As DM, we need to be sure to be organized in our thoughts and how we present our information. Sometimes we think from behind the screen, that if I give the players Fact A, then provide Fact B, that should immediately allow them to come up with conclusion to Fact C. However, if I presented Fact B first, presented extraneous information, and then Fact A, that may not the most effective way to communicate.

The channel is important because if I'm using my voice or passing written notes, there shouldn't be any interference. For example, as a DM, when I am reading box text or giving a description, everyone should be paying attention to me. If there's talking, the TV is playing in the background, or other distractions, then there's "interference" in the channel.

Lastly, for the receivers, the players should be focused, but it's really how vested they are in the adventure in the whole. I have two players whom I will call John and Jake. John writes very detailed notes of every encounter, NPC, location, etc. However, John's problem is that he's so focused on writing down the details, he never goes back or refers to his notes. So he hears the information, writes it down, but doesn't assimilate it. Jake doesn't write down any notes other than maybe an NPC name and the names of everyone who gets killed in the party. He roleplays the encounters, but once the encounter is over, he promptly forgets and rolls into the next encounter. He's the kind of guy in that if I just had one encounter after another with no story to go with it, it wouldn't faze him. My other players go off memory. So if I introduce Fact A in the beginning of the adventure and Fact B in the next session, then it's unlikely that anyone will draw a reasonable conclusion.

So here's what I do to "help".

1. Ensure that all the clues that need to be found are found within one session, usually in one encounter works better. For example, if you have two clues - finding tracks and a witness - allow the players to find those, but nothing else.

2. Don't throw red herrings or any other information at the players. Don't feed on their own misgivings either. Unless you got Sherlock Holmes or players who are good at logic puzzles, red herrings will likely derail your game than just adding spice. Players have a knack for creating their own red herrings. I ran a city adventure in which the players had three leads. Whenever they asked me questions that could potentially lead to some kind of fourth lead or meaningless investigation, my answer was always, "Nothing conclusive." or "You find nothing for that".

3. Reiterate the information and sum it up if you have to. It's okay to say at the end of an encounter, "Okay, you've exhausted your other avenues of investigation. So far, the only clues that stand out to you from your investigation are the tracks and the witness. What do you do?"

Happy Gaming!

 

[Nytmare]

I frequently forgo the die roll and instead have a conversation with them as though I were a part of their internal dialogue, niggling doubts, and insightful ideas.

My narrative tends to be more improvisational however, so my games are better suited to hinge around the players' ideas, be they bad or good.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think you need to tell them that. After the first time you throw them something in their sleep they know it isn't safe. Then again, I never really played 4e.

Well the way I GM, that first time might well be a TPK, and my players get tired of their PCs dying!

 

[Hussar]

One should not forget hard(ish) scene framing. Sometimes, it might simply be easier to cut to the chase. The players are fumbling and repeated beatings with the clue bat are just not hammering the point across, so, instead of letting the frustration build, just narrate it. Blow something up and have the results of that explosion just hand the PC's a pretty clear answer - They're searching for Baron McEvil and can't find him and are getting stumped. Minions of the Baron McEvil show up, get curbstomped by the party, and the last guy standing uses his dying words to say, "The Baron will avenge us from his stronghold at Grid A302"

Ok, that might be a tad too heavy handed, but, you get the point.

 

[Janx]

"The Baron will avenge us from his stronghold at Grid A302"

Ok, that might be a tad too heavy handed, but, you get the point.

nice enough example. I think the threshold for "just tell them" is for anything that wasn't supposed to be a puzzle or figured out.

If you had intended the PCs to readily know where the bad guy was (because it wasn't supposed to be a puzzle encounter or some such, just an interstitial cut scene), and the players are milling about because they didn't notice the signs that said "Bad Guy lives at Grid A302" that you put there because your players hate puzzles and like killing bad guys, then just tell them.


If you had arranged a clue scene, where the players were supposed to figure out the answer to where the bad guy lives, that's the trickier part. At the design stage, the thing to do would have been to detect the possibility of failure to decipher the clue and go to Grid A302, and have some other content ready to show the next crime that happens because you failed to deduce the clue, which might reveal a new more obvious clue.

Some DMs want the possibility of failure. With the core point of this thread, that means determining which information is inherently obvious and not meant to be the challenge, and which information was meant to be part of the challenge.

One extra concept to consider is from GumShoe which I learned about from a [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] thread. In that game, clues are given away for free when you look for them. There's no skill check DC to beat to get the clue. If you say, "I use my computer skills to check out his PC" and there was a clue in there, you get the clue.

The point in that game seems to be:

• the challenge is being saavy enough to use your skills to apply them to things to see if a clue was waiting for you
• to interpret the clue in a way that solves the problem

The game doesn't want you failing because you rolled a 17 when you needed an 18 to get the clue. It wants you to fail because you did not figure out how all the clues pinpoint which suspect was the killer.

Thus, it's not a lack of information problem, it's a failure to see the pattern in the information.

 

[Nytmare]

The point in that game seems to be:

• the challenge is being saavy enough to use your skills to apply them to things to see if a clue was waiting for you
• to interpret the clue in a way that solves the problem

The game doesn't want you failing because you rolled a 17 when you needed an 18 to get the clue. It wants you to fail because you did not figure out how all the clues pinpoint which suspect was the killer.

I'm not sure where I borrowed it from, I think it was either Burning Wheel or Obsidian, but in general when my players are making skill checks, succeeding is a forgone conclusion. What they're checking to see is how how many new problems arise and how many roadblocks get thrown in their way.