How to emphasize the right details?

[Talakeal]

So something I have always had a problem with is letting my players know what details are important and which aren't. Too many times have I seen the players spend hours investigating something that was merely put in as flavor or setting details or foreshadowing, and other times I have had the players simply walk right past and ignore vital plot hooks or clues.

The other night I was DMing for a new group who was used to a very kick in the door railroad style of play where the DM would, apparently, simply tell them where they were and why and then drop them into situations with only the immediately important details like what they were fighting. They seemed very confused and of focus, and started out by interacting with every little details as if it were of critical important, and after a few hours of not getting any of the dungeon dressing to "do anything" they simply got bored and started ignoring everything, even the obviously important stuff, not even bothering to search for loot.

I am not terribly good with subtle clues or non verbal communication. Does anyone have an idea how I can emphasize important details in the future without drawing too much information to things that are only there to set the mood or provide flavor? Aside from just telling them flat out "this is not important" which is both immersion breaking and smacks of railroading to me.

[valadil]

I don't think you should determine what is and isn't important to the players. If a PC finds a detail interesting, that makes it an important detail. You're not obliged to find a way to route it into your situation, but let the player explore it in more detail than you were expecting.

[huttj509]

First off, you ask a question that not only GMs, but storytellers of all stripes have wrestled with for centuries, at least.

The answer, unfortunately, depends a lot on you, your group, and what style of play you're aiming for.

The main thing I've found can help is figuring out how to be on the same page as your group. I've been in kick in the door games. I've been in more political RP games. I've enjoyed both. If I'm expecting one, the GM's expecting the other, and the other 3 players are all expecting different things, well, it'll be a bit of a mess for a few sessions (ran into this with a Castle Ravenloft game, where the GM's description of high lethality led us to make combat monsters, which clashed with his expectations of lower OP characters. Also hard to get a mentality of "creeping dread" when our reaction to a monster is to start smacking it around with extreme prejudice).

Unfortunately (again), a lot of what people expect from a game feels "obvious," and thus goes undiscussed until there's a conflict. http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/ might help.

[KillianHawkeye]

Really the only thing you can do is try to communicate what kind of game it's going to be beforehand, and even add reminders during the game if necessary. If you're playing with a new group of people, this is even more important. You need to know what kind of games they're used to playing, and you need to make sure they understand what kind of game you intend to run, and you need to see if they're even interested in that kind of game to begin with if it's something different from their norm.

If you just roll out an adventure for total strangers, you shouldn't be at all surprised if they approach it from a perspective different from the one you envisioned.

[DM Nate]

I usually go at it with something like this, "After inspecting the letter opener for a few minutes, your character comes to the conclusion that it is, in fact, only a simple, non-magical letter opener--the type that might be found in many of these houses. Something about the portrait on the wall, however, catches your eye, though you're not sure why yet..."

[Velaryon]

I agree with valadil to an extent - if the party focuses on something you had intended only as window dressing, let them explore it and see where it goes. It may not lead to anything, or maybe it will. If it seriously bogs down the game, just sum it up quickly like DM Nate did and try to redirect their attention elsewhere.

One question I haven't seen anyone address, though: how much detail do you describe? Is it possible that your players are getting too much description? Maybe they can't tell what you're trying to guide their attention toward because there's so much info being thrown at them?

If you have more proactive players, sometimes you can also react to what they're looking for in an area and build around that. For example if they're searching someone's office they might say they're looking for his account books or a set of keys or something, and you can just describe things they come across in their search before giving them what they were originally trying to find. If you want them to find, say, a diary that was left in a drawer, give that a bit more description than the other items in the desk. Talk about the cover, the binding, the loose pages stuffed inside, and the twine tying it shut, for example.

[Amphetryon]

I don't think you should determine what is and isn't important to the players. If a PC finds a detail interesting, that makes it an important detail. You're not obliged to find a way to route it into your situation, but let the player explore it in more detail than you were expecting.

This. If you're deciding which details are important before they've been encountered by the PCs whose actions are, in theory, the important thing, then you're diminishing the importance of the PCs in the story and the world by making it clear to them that it's your story and your world.

[Broken Crown]

The Law of Conservation of Detail is an important tool. When you describe a scene, your description is the only information your players have to go on. If you don't want the players to pay attention to some minor detail, don't include that detail: It isn't important to the scene. If a room is filled with stuff, but none of it matters, describe it in generic terms, like "opulent" or "cluttered"; that tells the players what the room is like, without calling their attention to any specifics that they might therefore conclude are important.

If, on the other hand, an object is important to the scene, be sure to describe it in detail right away: Let the players know that it is worth paying attention and investigating further. Just as you would describe the monsters in a room if you were expecting the PCs to fight them, describe the clues in a room if you expect the PCs to investigate them. This may sound like leading the players by the nose, but presumably, you do want them to investigate the important things, and ignore the rest, so they'll need some information to tell them which is which. Remember, without that, their only real choices are to investigate everything (which is boring and time-consuming), or to ignore everything.

I agree with Valadil to the extent that if a player shows interest in something, it's fine to satisfy that interest by giving more information. It's a good opportunity to flesh out the setting's background, if nothing else, and maybe you can work in some relevance to the events of the game. But be warned that this does take up game time, and requires good improvisational skills. Overall, it's probably better to get them interested in the important things before they get distracted. Because, while it is their story, it is your setting: If the secret door to the treasure vault is behind the portrait, they won't get to the treasure vault by examining the letter opener, no matter how closely.

(I've had some players whose characters could not ignore books. If there was a book in a room, the PC would at least flip through it looking for spells, maps, clues, or anything else of interest. A full bookcase would stall the game for a good long time (and tax my creativity if I hadn't already decided on the title and subject matter of each book). I quickly learned not to put any books in a room unless at least one of them was important to the game.)

[Raine_Sage]

Broken Crown's advice is the best really so I'm just going to add on to that.

Don't be afraid to prune story threads that aren't going to go anywhere. DMing is a bit like gardening, you get to decide what to cut and what to keep and what to prevent growing out of control. In my case, my players got hung up on the idea of owning a tower. They'd cleared out all the ghosts and whatnot and wanted a place to call home. I hadn't actually been planning on them staying in that town more than a week but it wound up becoming their home base and I had to adjust accordingly.

So their adventures in the feywild were pruned back a bit. Not removed completely, just delayed until they were done playing heroes of loudwater. Your story is flexible, unless there's a time limit or a BBEG with a plan on track, there's no real reason events have to transpire in the order you think them up.

[BWR]

The Law of Conservation of Detail is an important tool. When you describe a scene, your description is the only information your players have to go on. If you don't want the players to pay attention to some minor detail, don't include that detail: It isn't important to the scene. If a room is filled with stuff, but none of it matters, describe it in generic terms, like "opulent" or "cluttered"; that tells the players what the room is like, without calling their attention to any specifics that they might therefore conclude are important.


OTOH, adding some flavor makes the game more alive. Just giving one-word descriptions can get bland after a while. A few sentences to set the right tone and flavor can do wonder. The nobleman's chamber isn't just 'opulent', it's covered wall to wall, floor to ceilling with expensive pillows, tapestry and carpets, a riot of color, geometric designs and non-representative art. The BBEG's private room isn't just 'cluttered', it is full of old unwashed plates and remains of dinner, broken weapons, half-finished woodcarving projects, abandoned attempts at poetry and little clay figurines.

As for making sure the players focus on the right stuff.
- There's nothing wrong with allowing PCs to make some sort of check to see if they get the important stuff. Spot/search rolls, intelligence or wisdom checks to correctly identify the relevant information.
- Reinforce the important details with others. The PCs find hints about a secret cave two places, not just one.
- They find other details that hint strongly that the PCs' present focus is a waste of time. A note from a henchman mentioning that X, whom the PCs are investigating, was not receptive to their overtures and should be considered hostile to the Cause.
- You can also just say things like 'you get the feeling that this line of inquiry is pointless'. A nudge from the DM to the players to make sure they stay on track and don't waste everyone's time is not a crime.
- If the players persist in focusing on the wrong things, you can just avoid giving any sort of non-relevant flavor at all. It makes for a poorer game, imo, but it's better than things getting too sidetracked.

[Velaryon]

OTOH, adding some flavor makes the game more alive. Just giving one-word descriptions can get bland after a while. A few sentences to set the right tone and flavor can do wonder. The nobleman's chamber isn't just 'opulent', it's covered wall to wall, floor to ceilling with expensive pillows, tapestry and carpets, a riot of color, geometric designs and non-representative art. The BBEG's private room isn't just 'cluttered', it is full of old unwashed plates and remains of dinner, broken weapons, half-finished woodcarving projects, abandoned attempts at poetry and little clay figurines.

I agree that you don't need to completely skip all details that aren't pertinent to the story you're trying to tell. As long as you give more detail to the important bits, you should be alright. If you find that players are still focusing on the window dressing, tone down your description of it a bit more. You should be able to find some sort of balance between "describe only the important stuff" and "players look at six irrelevant details and ignore the one that's a plot hook."


As for making sure the players focus on the right stuff.
- There's nothing wrong with allowing PCs to make some sort of check to see if they get the important stuff. Spot/search rolls, intelligence or wisdom checks to correctly identify the relevant information.

Okay, but what happens if they fail the check? Do you not give them any info about what's relevant? Do you give them the wrong info, and tell them the letter opener is the real clue instead of the painting on the wall? Do you decide whatever the highest roll was is good enough? And if so, why call for a roll at all?


- Reinforce the important details with others. The PCs find hints about a secret cave two places, not just one.

I agree with this. Dropping more than one hint to where you want them to go/what you want them to do is good practice.

[jedipotter]

side from just telling them flat out "this is not important" which is both immersion breaking and smacks of railroading to me.


Far too much of the time you just have to do this, or you risk letting a game run on for hours as the characters run i circles. Keeping a game on track is railroading....but the good kind.

You can also take a cue from movies/tv shows. They only have a set amount of time to tell a story. So did you ever notice how, amazingly, the story moves along. A clue is always left behind, and it is always a big, obvious clue. Why? To move the story along. Think of how many times you have seen a character check a trash can and find a note clue (or pack of matches) right on top. How many times you seen a computer left on to the ''Google map location'' they went too? Or how about that big wall map with the red circle of ''important thing here''.

A great trick is to attack the players. They are starting down the wrong path.....and suddenly they bump into Scarface the One Armed Man. He is shocked to see them and runs...right onto the right path.

And that is just one step from the villain just taunting the players with ''be at the place at midnight''.

A lot of the time NPC's are better then clues. Just let Beboop or Rocksteady get caught and ''accidentally'' spill clues.


You can also do the change trick. So you plant like fifteen clues that ''something is up at the Blue Oyster Club'', but the players miss everyone. Instead they find a red scarf(that you placed for pure fluff) and think something is up at the Red Bull Club. So guess what....there is something up at that club.

[valadil]

One question I haven't seen anyone address, though: how much detail do you describe? Is it possible that your players are getting too much description? Maybe they can't tell what you're trying to guide their attention toward because there's so much info being thrown at them?

I'm pretty opinionated here too. In my last game I made a vow to give more description because it was something I hadn't done very well in previous games. I thought showing the players a more vivid world would help pull them into it.

It had the opposite effect.

What was going on was that when I wrote out a page of description, the players went to sleep. Not literally. But they saw the notebook come out and they heard me go into monologue and they became an audience. They were totally passive. I had to fight to get them to take back the spotlight.

Anyway, the lesson I took away from that was that when I'm describing a scene I get three sentences. That's all. I get to make three really salient points. But if I start a fourth scripted sentence, the players start to drift. I'm sure a more captivating storyteller could use more, but that's the rule that works for me.

[DM Nate]

I'm pretty opinionated here too. In my last game I made a vow to give more description because it was something I hadn't done very well in previous games. I thought showing the players a more vivid world would help pull them into it.

It had the opposite effect.

What was going on was that when I wrote out a page of description, the players went to sleep. Not literally. But they saw the notebook come out and they heard me go into monologue and they became an audience. They were totally passive. I had to fight to get them to take back the spotlight.

Anyway, the lesson I took away from that was that when I'm describing a scene I get three sentences. That's all. I get to make three really salient points. But if I start a fourth scripted sentence, the players start to drift. I'm sure a more captivating storyteller could use more, but that's the rule that works for me.

I'll have descriptions and details written up as well, but I'll only read each sentence as the PCs go to inspect whatever it's about.

If they miss some of the descriptions, I make sure to include them in the after-session write-ups (http://darkhaunt.net) I do, so they get them anyway (even if late).

[NichG]

This is a serious problem and I don't really have a good answer to it other than 'try to minimize the detail while capturing the essentials'. I think the whole railroading thing is really not relevant to this kind of problem - the issue isn't PCs choosing to be interested in the plight of the princess' handmaiden instead of the plight of the princess, its the PCs being really convinced that there's a secret door in a particular room because you described the candle flames flickering or something like that.

I'd say probably the most artful thing you can do is plan to spread out details over the course of something and re-use as much as possible. Make the dungeon have doors that are all the same, so you can describe the doors once. Put the generic things early and then only add specific alterations later on. Make sure everything you say has some piece of information behind it that would be useful or meaningful if someone figured out how to connect it - don't fill the air with empty detail. That information can be subtle stuff like 'I can figure out that this place was made by dwarves', but there should be something.

The place to use descriptions that don't have information content is when you're trying toprovoke an emotional reaction, so you can try to be very focused on what you're trying to achieve there and use that to pare down the excess.