Sorry missed this.
Party meets in a tavern. GM describes the tavern and notes that one of the patrons is an old man with one arm. This is understood by many old-school GMs as ample information for the party to know that the old man with one arm is an essential source of information that cannot be ignored. I--if I had not been explicitly told this by such GMs--would never have seen it as such, and would just have interpreted that old man as colorful background, a cool bit of set-dressing. These GMs have explicitly informed me that failing to talk to the one-armed old man would be a major--likely fatal--mistake.
Interesting. It is true Trad GMs have a variety of styles.
It then comes down to knowing your table, knowing your GM etc. This is very important.
However having said that, this is a good representation of some of the old narrative boxes which existed in the modules and it does indeed seem to follow some of that tradition where the most important information is distilled and provided. Now players may Q&A about the rest of the tavern, but the GM has done his duty in presenting the most pertinent information.
Furthermore, this kind of GMing I feel is akin to puzzle-solving, where you need to engage with the information given to get the next piece of the puzzle.
Wait, really?
Genuinely hold the phone here. I thought this level of collaboration was absolutely, positively unacceptable under any circumstances. Is that not the case?
I listed 2 options from the top of my head that could exist with 1 horn of your trilema.
I am open to the second option, it is NOT popular amongst the traditional way of GMing.
So this is me.
I mean I don't really have a very high opinion of "a menu of choices" as being the kind of sandbox folks here have insisted upon, but alright I guess. What does "encourage Q&A" mean? Like what do you do to do that? (This, at the very least, is something that would be personally, directly useful to me, because I have a player who profoundly struggles with brain-locks-up issues during play. Like I describe the scene and a potential problem to be resolved and half the time he genuinely cannot think of ANYTHING to say. At all, period--zip zero zilch nada, brain completely empty. When he does have ideas, they're great! But he locks up so often it can be a challenge to run the game for him, so literally ANYTHING you can tell me about how to encourage Q&A would be incredibly useful to me.)
Hmmm, this is a problem beyond the trilema it seems.
(i) After giving the menu of options, I'd go around the table and ask what their gut instinct is leaning towards - so do not single him out but leave him towards the last of the players being asked so that he can hear what others have to say and hopefully build on that. Maybe not at first but after a few times they gain their confidence/wings.
(ii) Have NPCs offer input or engage with him in conversation (try first person) which then
forces him to answer back. NPCs are great as they bring it back into the fiction as opposed to the GM asking questions in the meta.
(iii) You can use INT checks and the like to offer clues, pull the player aside if you can and offer him information that only he knows for whatever reason which means he is
forced to offer that information to the rest of the players, it gets him involved and elevates their importance in the party.
(iv) Have the players break into pairs and engage with each other as characters, offer "inspiration" or whatever else meta can be offered for interesting dialogue or cool roleplay.
(v) Lastly encourage by way of adding more colour to scene-framing, eye contact during play and asking him to narrate successes, describe his character's approach, tone, look etc - get him to speak at the table without the pressure of making decisions.
I was given to understand this was too much limitation, by a pretty significant degree. Is that not the case?
I do not think so.
I have a player to whom we have to repeat things over and over because he doesn't always pay attention or it becomes misinformation as soon as passes his ears, it is a joke at our table.
Repeating things, engaging with the players, correcting NOT THEIR ASSUMPTIONS but the facts and visual aids helps a lot.
In the session I referred to, the players had over a dozen options with a massive time constraint, each choices came with their own ramifications - the players actually split, 3 went to the Underdark (practical choice in their eyes) and one is on his way to Nine Hells (due to personal bond).
