GM-player Communication vs. Metagaming

[howandwhy99]

Play suggestion #2 "If you are unclear about something, keep engaging until you are clear"

This follows very closely after #1 "If you are uncomfortable about doing something, don't do it"

GMs are facilitators, not enemies. Clear communication is as important to playing the game as is, well, sharing a common language.

 

[The Shaman]

Even on a GM-centric place like EN World, most times I see advice like the Three Clue Rule geting mentioned, someone pipes up with, "Gee, that's a good idea! I'll use that!" So, yes, I think "often" is a reasonable characterization.

EN World is representative of jack and .

 

[Rogue Agent]

I'll:

1. Consider - is there a miscommunication - is there something the PCs should know, that the players clearly don't?

a) If yes, I tell them.
b) If not sure, ask for Knowledge checks.
c) If no, ok then.

Pretty much this: I won't give them access to information they don't have and I won't tell them what they should or shouldn't be doing, but I will make sure that (a) they have access to all the information their PCs would have and (b) there hasn't been some form of miscommunication or misunderstanding.

 

[S'mon]

Not true. The GM also must sleep in the bed he makes. If from mis-communication the players are killed most likely the game is then dead.

Yes, but as long as the players are still alive, they can always roll up new PCs!

 

[delericho]

"Often incorrect?"

I agree with Umbran.

The thing is that the DM has a clear picture of the scene in his head, plus all the relevant background information, all the appropriate assumptions, and anything else that is needed.

The players have what the DM tells them, and nothing more.

Communication is hard. At my place of work, I'm regarded as one of our most effective communicators, especially in the written form. Yet I've lost count of the number of times I've written something that seemed completely clear and obvious to me, only to have it come up in the review because my colleagues have misunderstood it - often because I assumed some other knowledge that was lurking in the back of my mind, but which I hadn't (and should have) mentioned.

Man, I'm so tired of "blame the referee" .

It's not about blame. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the DM communicated badly or if the players listened badly - in the scenario described, the game may be about to go off the rails because the players are working with incorrect information. Since the players can't know they've gone wrong (or else they would have fixed it!), it falls to the DM to correct the situation.

And, to finish up, a few things I've learned that help with getting the message across:

- Don't imply things. If there's something the players should know, tell them.

- Don't swamp the players with detail. If you talk for more than about 20 seconds, by the end the players will likely have forgotten the details from the start. That's not because they're stupid, or not listening, it's because short-term memory is limited, especially if it's not clear what is and is not important.

- Watch your language. Your players aren't Gygax, or Tolkien, or even REH. Chances are that they won't know exactly the same set of words as you (and this is even more true if they're playing in a second language, of course). If you throw in lots of obscure words into your descriptions, you're as likely to muddy up your descriptions as you are to evoke an old-timey feel.

This last one is controversial, of course, since descriptions should also be evocative, and choice of words is an important part of that. Here, I've found a hybrid approach works quite well - describe the parameters of the situation in almost technical terms ("three goblins, here, here and here..."), but then add some limited flavour on top, generally in peripheral matters ("the lead goblin capers and cackles with a malevolent glee...").

(Of course, if your players are Gygax, Tolkien and REH, or equivalently skilled with the language, you should ignore the above. But then, you'll have realised that. )

 

[Loonook]

Maybe I'm just blessed by being picky on who I pick to play with... But you guys don't take NOTES? You don't keep track of information? I weed out the players who are not up to snuff and could lead to a lot of 'are you sure' moments through play, and when the core really gets going?

Well, that's when it is fun.

"Are you sure?" is about as far as I am willing to go. I stopped believing in anything else when I tried to 'save' a party from enough idiot decisions and realized that there's nothing to be gained by the party.

I think about gaming in a sandbox game like Skyrim or Fallout. I do my first playthrough to get ahold of my senses and how the game plays by playing Normal or even Easy. If the game seems meh I go to Hard, and tactics begin to matter. I start feeling the curve and step it up, and keep going forward. Up and up and up.. And I don't blame the PC for my stupidity. I don't blame the designers for getting me caught up in that stupid Super Mutant ambush...

Or the time I got taken out by that group of brigands...

Or the time I walked right into a huge firefight with no way out in a tunnel complex...

I walked into these locations. I knew there was a possibility, I prepared, and I got my backside grilled by sword or shotgun.

I curse at the screen, dust myself off, and keep playing.


In RPGs a few "stupid" deaths build character I say .

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Umbran]

EN World is representative of jack and .

Suggesting you watch your language conversationally apparently had no effect, so now let's try it in Mod Voice:

EN World is intended as a family-friendly place. Rule #1 is, "Keep it civil." We have a language filter as a last resort, not as a way to use foul language safely. Everyone can guess the word there easily enough, which is the same as using the word.

Don't use foul language again. Disagree with me, or anyone else, all you want. But do so in a civil tone, with clean words, or not at all. Them's the rules, which you surely knew already. So, that's your last warning.

Anyone have questions or discussion on this, take it to e-mail or PM with the moderator of your choice.

 

[The Shaman]

Maybe I'm just blessed by being picky on who I pick to play with... But you guys don't take NOTES? You don't keep track of information? I weed out the players who are not up to snuff and could lead to a lot of 'are you sure' moments through play, and when the core really gets going?

Well, that's when it is fun.

"Are you sure?" is about as far as I am willing to go.

Exactly.

If the players aren't sure about something, they should ask. I'm happy to give them all the description they want, put minis on the table, draw a sketch, show them a picture - whatever helps to frame it in their minds.

But they need to take the initiative to ask, and they are responsible for keeping track of the answers. They decide when they have enough information, and they live - or not - with the consequences of their choices.

 

[Janx]

Exactly.

If the players aren't sure about something, they should ask. I'm happy to give them all the description they want, put minis on the table, draw a sketch, show them a picture - whatever helps to frame it in their minds.

But they need to take the initiative to ask, and they are responsible for keeping track of the answers. They decide when they have enough information, and they live - or not - with the consequences of their choices.

Key words "aren't sure"

The problem comes in when players THINK they have a clear picture, but it turns out that it does not match the GM's actual picture.

Here's a real example from a 1st level game I was a player in:

we we hunting down some bad guys (kobolds) who happened to live in tree forts (think ewok village). We climbed up, and the place appeared to be abandoned.

Suddenly, we start getting shot at from adjacent platforms. The cleric in the small party announces he is going to run and jump across to the next platform to attack the kobolds.

As a player, I don't recall the GM saying how high up we were or how far away the platforms were. I had the impression (like the ewok village) that we were high enough up and far enough apart that it wasn't going to work, so I tried to stop the player.

As a GM, what do you do when the player announces his decision to jump? Bear in mind, you may not have explicitly described the distances involved.

 

[The Shaman]

Key words "aren't sure"

No, the key words are "should ask."

The problem comes in when players THINK they have a clear picture, but it turns out that it does not match the GM's actual picture.

Again, I'll go over the specifics of something as much or as little as the players want. I have maps and diagrams and pictures and miniatures to illustrate the scene, and I'll whip up a sketch if something still isn't clear.

It's a description of a room, not rocket surgery.

Here's a real example from a 1st level game I was a player in: . . . As a GM, what do you do when the player announces his decision to jump? Bear in mind, you may not have explicitly described the distances involved.

Every character in my campaign has a jump number which tells them how high and how far, without or without a running start, they can expect to jump, so I'll tell the player what the distance is and if there are any obvious obstacles between where they take off and where they land.

Moreover, what the player in your example stated isn't a "decision." It's an intention. It's a decision when the dice are rolled to determine success or failure.