Pondering Perception

[delericho]

Could you give a few more specific examples of the types of clues you'd use?

Okay, a few examples.

Example One: Hidden door

In the dungeon there is a room filled with tapestries. There is a secret door hidden behind a tapestry showing a unicorn.

- the PCs have a map showing directions to the dungeon. Scrawled on the back, without any context, is the note "behind the unicorn" (For additional credit, this map should be a handout given to the players - let them find the clue and realise what it means!)

- In the tapestry room, there are ancient impressions of lots of muddy footprints. For some reason, though, they seem to avoid that one corner... (because the owners of the dungeon were always sure to keep that bit extra-clean)

- Later in the dungeon, the PCs encounter a prisoner who offers to guide them to the door. (This works best if it's a hobgoblin, or tiefling, or otherwise someone untrustworthy - this then presents the players with an interesting choice to make.)

(The third 'clue' is really just the solution. Still, if it's found late in the dungeon, this probably doesn't matter, and especially if it changes the nature of the problem in an interesting way.)

Example Two: The Turncoat

The PCs are sent to deal with a bandit camp. The bandit's lieutenant, Beth, regrets her actions, and is willing to abandon her leader in return for a pardon.

- If the PCs ask around in town before heading out (and they really should), they hear several stories of how pitiless the bandits are. And one exception... it seems that a caravan carrying desperately-needed food was stopped just before last winter. The bandit leader wasn't there, but Beth was. On discovering the food, and understanding how vital it was, she let the caravan go lightly.

- Beth isn't encountered in her sleeping quarters. However, if the PCs search there, they find her journal, which expresses her regret at the path her life has taken.

- If the PC rogue goes scouting, he has opportunity to overhear an argument between Beth and her lover. Said lover questions why they stay with the bandit leader, to which Beth rejoins, "What else can we do? We're outlaws - we can't go back!"

When the PCs encounter Beth, therefore, they can perhaps persuade her to join them with a Diplomacy check (DC as per "page 42"). Alternately, if the players think to have their characters offer her a pardon in return for her help, she will change sides automatically.

I'm having difficulty imagining how to offer 3 clues without painting a neon sign. For example, in the case of a decapitating trap I might mention blood on the floor, scratches on the wall, and decapitated skeletal remains. However, that seems so obvious to me that a child could figure it out.

Yeah, that's probably a bit simple. However, how about this:

- If any PC is trained in History, he learns at the outset of the adventure that this is domain of "The Chopper", an undead executioner. Legend has it that the Chopper would come in the dead of night and sever the heads of its victims, never requiring more than a single stroke to perform such a deed. (And then fill the dungeon with similar atmospheric fluff - headless statues, other blade traps, and so on.)

- In the room with the decapitating trap, there are green stains on the wall (old, long-dried kobold blood)

- The dungeon has been taken ove, in part, by a tribe of kobolds. They have long forgotten why the trap room is dangerous, but they shun it with almost religious fervour. When the PCs recruit Meepo as a guide, he shows them about, but refuses to enter the trapped room. However, when asked why, he can only say something about "danger!"

I'm not saying that neon signs are necessarily a bad thing.

In general, players will always find things a bit harder to find than you think they will, hence the "three clue" guideline. However, the most satisfaction will generally be had by the players if they genuinely do figure it out for themselves. So, yeah, try to avoid "neon signs", but at the same time, don't worry too much that the clues are a bit too obvious - they're always going to be obvious to you since you know the solution!

As with everything else, a bit of trial and error will be needed. Chances are you'll find some things are "too tough", some are "too easy", and some are "about right". As time goes on, you'll gradually find you get better at aiming at that "about right" target.

 

[delericho]

I think the OP is onto an excellent point. If 5e is to really improve the quality of the non-combat experience, the designers will need to focus on creating well design adventures and better guidelines for writing the same. It's not just a mechanical question. It's about helping GMs write more balanced, more interesting and more immersive adventures.

One thing that's a little frustrating is that WotC actuallydid quite a lot of this. Ages ago, in the dark days of 2006, when "Legends & Lore" was called "Design & Development" and was written by David Noonan, he discussed several elements of adventure design at some length, including locks (and keys), traps, and even things like linearity in dungeon maps.

A lot of the work that he did was then fed into "The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde", the adventure that was the debut of the 'Delve' format for adventures.

Now, to be fair, it wasn't a great adventure - it had some neat ideas, but too much just fell flat. However, it really seemed that WotC were on to something, that they had some really good ideas that would genuinely lead to better adventures. And at least they seemed to be thinking in the right direction.

Unfortunately, they seemed to progressively unlearn all those lessons in favour of things like "Keep on the Shadowfell", and allowed the debate over the Delve format to overshadow everything else that came out of that series. It's a real shame.

 

[Jhaelen]

As for the issue of the "Standard Operating Procedures", these are a playstyle issue, much like the "15 minute Adventuring Day". In fact, they're probably a response to DMs who have hidden elements in their game, require the players to figure out exactly where they are, and who have provided insufficient clues to enable them to do that. Therefore, the group is reduced to exhaustively going through the dungeon interacting with every single element in every possible way to find the one hidden item in the dungeon. This is combated by making sure there are means of finding the hidden elements, by not simply springing death traps on them without any warning, and then by encouraging them to move on reasonably briskly.

I don't agree with all of your points but this one is spot on.

Generally I'm a proponent of using skill checks and passive skills (a.k.a. take 10). But there are two caveats:
The player must describe her actions - simply rolling isn't sufficient.
No amount of passive perception is going to make you find out every secret by just glancing into a room.

Instead I like to give hints based on passive skills. I agree that giving hints in gratious amounts is key to a fun adventure. I'm also a fan of hiding things in plain sight. Foreshadowing works great, too. And, yes, it should always be possible for the pcs to learn about an adventure's background. Using handouts for this, based on passive skills strikes me as a very good way to do this. Having npcs around to talk to is also a must, imho, particularly in a dungeon scenario that mostly consists of combats.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Okay, a few examples...

Thanks for elaborating! I see how it could work now. I'd give you more xp, but I have to spread some around first...

 

[Mark CMG]

Thanks for elaborating! I see how it could work now. I'd give you more xp, but I have to spread some around first...

Covered.

A lot of the work that he did was then fed into "The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde", (. . .)

I ran The Slathered Plates of Butterworth but my players ate it for breakfast. I expected it to be a sausage grinder but they flattened it like a . . . (okay, I'll stop now)

 

[KidSnide]

In general, players will always find things a bit harder to find than you think they will, hence the "three clue" guideline. However, the most satisfaction will generally be had by the players if they genuinely do figure it out for themselves. So, yeah, try to avoid "neon signs", but at the same time, don't worry too much that the clues are a bit too obvious - they're always going to be obvious to you since you know the solution!

As with everything else, a bit of trial and error will be needed. Chances are you'll find some things are "too tough", some are "too easy", and some are "about right". As time goes on, you'll gradually find you get better at aiming at that "about right" target.

I agree with the three clue guidelines as a general rule. One of the problems with providing clues is that players often have a hard time distinguishing between "clues" and "set dressing". A good GM provides a ton of detail, and -- if you're not listening closely -- it's easy to mistake important information for "mere descriptive detail."

My rule of thumb is that PCs should be able to figure out between 66% and 90% of the clues out there. If they can't figure out substantially more clues that you put out, then the clues are probably too hard and the PCs are missing almost half the clever gameplay. If they are figuring out more than 90% of your clues, then there is probably room for you to make them harder.

Of course this is a big challenge for adventure writers since groups vary tremendously in terms of what clues they puzzle out. Three different groups can look at the same set of clues and find them totally obvious, a good challenge and complete impossible guesswork, respectively.

-KS

 

[MarkB]

I agree with the three clue guidelines as a general rule. One of the problems with providing clues is that players often have a hard time distinguishing between "clues" and "set dressing". A good GM provides a ton of detail, and -- if you're not listening closely -- it's easy to mistake important information for "mere descriptive detail."

The reverse can also be true - you can run into the "law of conservation of detail", whereby anything you deem important enough to specifically mention takes on unusual significance to the players, because they know it wouldn't be there if it wasn't important.

To take Delericho's example of Beth the turncoat bandit, this can work very well or very badly depending upon emphasis. If Beth is the only bandit you mention by name aside from their leader, the players may immediately cotton on to her importance, even without knowing more about her character - but if you bury her story amidst details of other members of the gang, the players may fasten onto something you dropped in purely as 'filler', disregarding your well-laid clues in the process.