Original setting, politics and sandbox investigation

[Cazero]

Edit : spoiler'ed the issues already adressed/solved.

I am currently running a play-by-post campaign on another forum set in an original setting (and might start it here in parallel, who knows).
Wich lead me to the first problem. I feel obligated to describe a good part of the setting in details even before character creation. Playable species and associated stereotypes, major religions and cultures, common knowledge of magic and global factions are all useful to know during the character creation process, even if players opt for pre-gen characters, but already represent a big load of information.
At some point, having all that background to read might be dissuasive for players. How do I know how much is too much? Should I simply put it all there, and hope I get enough interested people to get started?


This problem is not the biggest issue, since I got my players started on pre-gen characters (they were probably not comfortable with creating their own, but it might be because they're not experienced in roleplaying in general and not out of setting ignorance).

The game is a sandbox medieval investigation, with the interests and involvment of local politics still unclear for the players. As such, the setting's political background is very important. In addition, the players are both diplomats and investigators from a nation far away from the campaign region, and as such their knowledge of the locals politics are either inaccurate or outdated.
Second problem right here : all that background must be exposed to the players at some point. Again.
After the more general world exposition, I would understand players losing interest if they have to go through the same kind of inactive reading during a while.
I really don't know how to make that part better. Should I just warn players about the exposition-heavy aspect of the start, and hope they stick with it? How could I spread it out without being unreallistic, or without denying them investigation opportunities out of ignorance?


I currently arranged for them to get an exposition fairy in the form a local lord who believes it is in his best interests to have them properly informed, so the realistic part is kinda covered.

But then comes the hard part. Medieval investigation has never been effective from the start and the travels involved mean the players arrive months after the events they're supposed to be investigating. My script predict action from the BBEG group and several way to thwart him at that point, but they require some preparations, and therefore, successful investigation. I also have several stock testimonies that will help players know what did not happen (and provide red herrings), but no real clues about what actually happened.

What kind of clues could last long enough? How do I guide players toward said clues without railroading them?

[Yora]

The important thing about presenting information is that the players need to feel that it's information that is relevant to them. When you hear or read a description, you always try to filter out the important bits and discard everything that is just padding and embelishments. When the players get a piece of information, they need to know why this is going to matter to them at the same time.

[Cazero]

The important thing about presenting information is that the players need to feel that it's information that is relevant to them. When you hear or read a description, you always try to filter out the important bits and discard everything that is just padding and embelishments. When the players get a piece of information, they need to know why this is going to matter to them at the same time.

Good point. Applying that kind of filter does lighten pre-gen background, and what I need from it can be brought casually in game when actually needed.

On the other hand, my in-game exposition concern is more on the line of "if I ommit that guy, they won't suspect him because they won't even know he exists, and might feel cheated I didn't mentionned him earlier if he end up doing something important".
I can't really apply a relevance filter here, since 1) it's their job to do it (investigation and everything) and 2) what is actually relevant depends of what they choose to do.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe you could list the tldr version of each setting aspect (the most basic info needed to make characters), and then have the more detailed version in spoilers under it?

For example:

Dragons aren't in the setting, so no dragon-based character options (like dragonborn, PrCs, kobolds, etc).
Long ago, in the Year Of Our Lord negative 3 billion, dragons did exist and preyed upon mortals, but the wizard Draco Cidos and the hero Jack Manly embarked upon a quest to rid dragons from the world, stealing their hoards, and dispensing much of the proceeds to victims of the dragons' attacks. Though not entirely thorough themselves (the heroes were crushed by falling rocks, reportedly shortly after discovering a spell called "Shivering Touch". No trace of the spell was found among their remains), their genocidal rampage earned them a reputation as heroes, and made dragon-hide a fashionable material for nobles, setting the stage for other dragon-hunters to complete the dragons' extinction. 5 billion years later, at the beginning of this campaign, dragons are little more than fairy tales, and learned men sometimes doubt they ever existed.

[Thrudd]

Ideally, players should know exactly what their characters know at the start, nothing more. They do need to know relevant things that are common knowledge to people from their part of the world. How much reading that will entail will depend on your setting and the characters.

If investigation is a part of the game, then they should be expecting to talk to many NPC's who will reveal all manner of information to them. Some of that information might be background exposition and history, but the players should be looking forward to it, because every bit of information could help them. As it's a play-by-post, this really shouldn't be a big deal to read a page of information. It's not like you are stopping an in-person game to read a novella to them. The players know the game is about politics and investigation, right? They should be expecting a lot of dialogue.

[Cazero]

Maybe you could list the tldr version of each setting aspect (the most basic info needed to make characters), and then have the more detailed version in spoilers under it?


Nice idea. Will certainly do.


If investigation is a part of the game, then they should be expecting to talk to many NPC's who will reveal all manner of information to them. Some of that information might be background exposition and history, but the players should be looking forward to it, because every bit of information could help them. As it's a play-by-post, this really shouldn't be a big deal to read a page of information. It's not like you are stopping an in-person game to read a novella to them. The players know the game is about politics and investigation, right? They should be expecting a lot of dialogue.
So you're saying I'm making a mountain of an anthill?
Because I actually like how my "exposition fairy" approach turned out, and could simply keep it.

[Jay R]

Give them what they need to make up their minds, with more information after they do. In my most recent game, my introduction had one paragraph on cosmology and the gods. I had an additional two pages for clerics.

[Milodiah]

I broke down my campaign brief to "what my players know as residents of the world", "what they know as residents of the kingdom/city", and "what they know as members of the City Watch". The top tier is general recent history, a brief primer on foreign nations and races, etc. etc. The second tier is stuff about internal politics, the various hardships the kingdom and city face, etc. etc. The bottom tier is a brief summary of the laws they're expected to enforce, the trends they've been noticing around town, etc. etc.

The nice thing about this approach is it lets me tailor the information the players (not just the PCs) know based on where they live and who they are. Of course they hear that Republic A is a terrible place to live, that sends spies across the border and terrorizes border towns. They live in a country that's in a quasi-war with Republic A. If they had started the game in Republic A, they'd probably hear that Kingdom B is a terrible place to live that executes innocent Republic citizens and blames all their problems on Republic A sabotage. And the best part is, it's essentially true either way. It's all in the way you look at things!

Also, never, EVER try to pin alignments to entire nation-states, unless we're dealing with Mordor after Hitler overthrew Mordor and invited Pol Pot to fix its educational system. Be as general as possible about the nature of each country, like its general demographics, its recent history (in Wikipedia-neutrality terms), its economy, etc. Don't be subjective at this point, let that come later after the PCs are citizens of a (glorious) country that's (allegedly) better than all the other ones.

[Cazero]

Give them what they need to make up their minds, with more information after they do.
I will try.


I broke down my campaign brief to "what my players know as residents of the world", "what they know as residents of the kingdom/city", and "what they know as members of the City Watch".
-snip-
The nice thing about this approach is it lets me tailor the information the players (not just the PCs) know based on where they live and who they are.
Exactly my thoughts, and I already try that sort of approach.


My concern now is that I wrote the players into a corner. They still have some time before reaching that point (lots of people to see and ask about), but my campaign plan is like this :
Show up and ask questions.
????
Follow lead from 2. to find and get a tailored MacGuffin by your method of choice. (tailored MacGuffin here can be raising an army, so don't say it's a stupid DM artefact plot :smallbiggrin:)
Use MacGuffin from 3. to thwart BBEG.
Profit !!!

My big step 3 made me oblivious to the lack of an actual 2 before I started the campaign. It should be "Use guesses and suspicions from 1. to find clues and a lead".
I have no material clues to give them a lead, and no idea what could have lasted that long. I can't just expect them to guess enough of what happened to get a lead, having to wander randomly would be bad DMing, and adding a witness who kept his mouth shut until the PC arrived is straight railroading in my context.

[LokiRagnarok]

That's not railroading imho - breach of immersion at most. If you need to, make up a reason why the witness would trust foreigners more.

A few things from the top of my mind:

* it was revealed to Witness in a dream they would need to reveal the info to one of the PCs
* the local authorities are covering the Thing That Happened up. Someone not affiliated with them is more trustworthy.
* Witness is someone generally ignored or chased by the local authorities - a child the PCs have been friendly to, a criminal or the like.

[Jay R]

... my campaign plan is like this :
Show up and ask questions.
????
Follow lead from 2. to find and get a tailored MacGuffin by your method of choice. (tailored MacGuffin here can be raising an army, so don't say it's a stupid DM artefact plot :smallbiggrin:)
Use MacGuffin from 3. to thwart BBEG.
Profit !!!


Here is my proposed alteration:

Show up and ask questions.
Run generic introductory scenario.
Go home and plan out campaign based on discusion in 1.
etc.

[Cazero]

That's not railroading imho - breach of immersion at most.
True. My bad.


A few things from the top of my mind:

* it was revealed to Witness in a dream they would need to reveal the info to one of the PCs
* the local authorities are covering the Thing That Happened up. Someone not affiliated with them is more trustworthy.
* Witness is someone generally ignored or chased by the local authorities - a child the PCs have been friendly to, a criminal or the like.
Hmmm.
Prophetic dreams actually do exist in my setting, but are really rare.
There always are some people ignored by/actively avoiding the local authorities. Several of such groups with valuable info can be found with a lead from step 2 (wich is a bit too late), but I can still use them for the "shut up until now" trick. Maybe I can also add a kid or something.
For the coverup part, the setting actually set the players as being notoriously trustwhorthy, regardless of local authorities corruption. Someone who didn't talk from paranoia could actually open up to them. I didn't think about that, but my players might not think about it either.
Definitely ideas to work on.




Here is my proposed alteration:

Show up and ask questions.
Run generic introductory scenario.
Go home and plan out campaign based on discusion in 1.
etc


Well, the "show up and ask questions" is part of the campaign. They're already on the case, but I can still find a secondary plot that needs some emergency solving. Same as the generic intro thing, without the generic.


Of course, none of this beats solid material evidence, but the more I think about it, the more I think said evidence should have disappeared or been destroyed by the time the PCs arrive.