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

[Piratecat]

The GUMSHOE games from Pelgrane - Ashen Stars, Night's Black Agents, Trail of Cthulhu, and so on - are designed to avoid exactly this problem. The joy comes in putting together the clues, not hoping you'll get them.

 

[Water Bob]

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

Scanning the thread, I don't think anyone has mentioned an obvious tool for the GM in this situation.

NPCs.

The GM can bring notice to things through the voice of an NPC.

Not the only way, but a way.

 

[Hussar]

I've come to the opinion that you should always err on the side of too much information. Mystery is one thing, but, I'm going to do my darndest to get as much information into the hands of the players as fast as I possibly can.

And, y'know what else works? When the players have an idea that's wrong, but doesn't contradict anything that's happened in the campaign, it suddenly becomes true. Why? Because that's a lot more fun.

 

[howandwhy99]

As I understand it everything the DM ever conveys in relation to the game, and I mean everything, is a clue. What I should have said in my prior post is that the DM can give hints, but hints are referee's actively being generous to the players.

What you can do, if folks are getting frustrated, is make some judgement calls a little more in their favor. I've found this can work as a clarifying question from me. For example, if a player is openly talking as if their dog isn't with them, but it actually is, then I'll read a phrase a little more helpfully like, "Where did I leave my dog?" is followed up by me with "Are you looking for you dog?" If yes, "Blitzberger sees the dog walking along beside him" or some such. (The tricky part is this may blow a player's cover who may be attempting to bluff another player, so watch out if a hardcore group falls into your lap)

It's kind of a catchphrase for me now, but my most common question is, "What are you doing?" Asking me stuff like, "Did we turn off the stove before we left?" isn't really anything I can answer. For me, D&D's largely a memory game played in the here and now.

And, y'know what else works? When the players have an idea that's wrong, but doesn't contradict anything that's happened in the campaign, it suddenly becomes true. Why? Because that's a lot more fun.

I used to do this in the past, but I actually enjoy being wrong as often as not now. (Not that going with the group's current preference isn't another satisfying style or anything) What I've found is sticking to a single (yet dynamic) situation can help with focus and get people concentrating on what's happening as well as what did and what might happen. Of course it can mean the PCs going off in all sorts of directions where what they expected is not at all what occurs, so this isn't for everyone.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

That's not entirely true. In real life or in the game, when you're staring at a dead end and don't know what to do, indecision can be a problem. This goes double if you're used to playing railroads.

 

[Mark CMG]

That's not entirely true. In real life or in the game, when you're staring at a dead end and don't know what to do, indecision can be a problem. This goes double if you're used to playing railroads.

Sure but in real life unlike a game you have multiple sources of input. In a game, while exploring a setting, the GM is the facilitator, the eyes and ears and only source of input. A GM needs to be able to believe there are many ways to come at a obstacle or the only input he gives will leave the players at a dead end and the players will have little else they can do about it.

 

[DragonLancer]

And, y'know what else works? When the players have an idea that's wrong, but doesn't contradict anything that's happened in the campaign, it suddenly becomes true. Why? Because that's a lot more fun.

I've done this. Most recently was a Call of Cthulhu 1920's game centered around the theft of some Egyptian artifacts from a museum in Arkham by a "cult" of Egyptian ghouls. The players somehow managed work out that it was a non-mythos plot and that it was a fraud case by the broke son of the family that owned the artifacts. Actually came out as a better idea than what I had done so their plot beame the plot instead. The players really felt (not knowing that I had taken their plot) that they had achieved something which was cool.

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The players really felt (not knowing that I had taken their plot) that they had achieved something which was cool.

I'm telling. Please PM me their email addresses so I can alert them to this thread.

Sometimes I've worked out multiple options, but no one way. I let the players create/learn what really happened. It helps me avoid giving a wrong clue or omitting something.

 

[Thotas]

This is one of those times to remember that the player is not the character, and the character is not the player.

Vonclarin the Wizard may have seen and heard something on what for him was yesterday. But for Andy, who created Vonclarin, that was a session two weeks ago. And he didn't actually perceive it. It was described verbally to him, and meantime since he got that description, he's had a stressful week at work, his wife just told him she's going to have their first baby, he's seem a couple of movies and sporting events, and just generally had stuff to take care of that distracts him from thinking in Vonclarin mode all the time. One of the jobs of the DM is to be the player's senses, and sometimes that means being a memory jogger of those senses.

Give 'em all the clues. Remind them of clues from earlier sessions. Just don't tell them the answers to the puzzles!