Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 4289288" data-attributes="member: 2642">Some of the ones from the one game I ever quit entirely of my own free will have come up here (railroading, ignoring the rules in the service of same, failing to pay sufficient attention to what does and does not interest the players), but two big ones haven't. I think these problems are both common and serious, though I make no claims to having a comprehensive ranking of such things.One is failing - or, worse, actively refusing - to tell the players things their characters would obviously know. Being unreasonably stingy with basic information results in nothing but frustration and resentment. If my character has been living in the city the game starts in his whole life, he shouldn't be caught by surprise by basic common-knowledge details of how the laws, government or major religions work simply because I failed to read the GM's mind. If a player asks - after going over a month without playing, mind you - why the PCs came to the town they're currently in (when this happened yesterday for the characters but over six weeks ago for the players), tell them rather than going on an insulting rant about them "not paying attention". In fact, you shouldn't even wait for them to ask - it's generally best to start each session with a recap of recent events in the campaign.(In all fairness, I catch myself doing this a bit sometimes, but nowhere near as egregiously as the GM I'm referring to. However, I start most sessions with a recap, tend to get more liberal with information if the players are obviously confused, never refuse to answer direct questions about things that would be obvious to a character, and have a mechanic of memory checks in place for handling cases where this is not so obvious. If the players remember a thing, great. If they don't but their characters obviously would, I tell them. If they don't but their characters might , one or more of them gets a check.)The other is "mysteries" with no, or only very ambiguous, clues. Many GMs think the number and type of clues actually found in a typical mystery novel is enough. That attitude betrays a complete failure to understand the differences between RPGs on the one hand, and novels, television etc on the other. In other genres, the writer is free to determine what the protagonist(s) will notice or find significant and how he/she/they will interpret it. There's no way to guarantee this in an RPG, and it's very vulnerable to degenerating into a metagame-level exercise in reading the GM's mind. Every credible source of advice on this subject recommends at least three times this minimal amount of clues. Note that this combines especially poorly with the problem mentioned above; giving ambiguous clues and then refusing to give basic information about the world that might be relevant to interpreting them guarantees frustrated players.</blockquote>

Verification