Description and Viewpoints

[jedipotter]

An approximation of the wealth of a town is the sort of thing that you can get just by walking through the town for a while. If there are fairly few people out, markets are largely empty, buildings are dilapidated, etc. it's probably not doing so well. If there's a bustling city with lots of large, clean, well maintained buildings and a thriving marketplace, it's probably pretty rich. A player will have some degree of understanding here if the town got any more description than "a town".

Now this sort of thing comes up in my games all the time. A lot of players expect things to be ''simple and easy'' to figure out. I don't share that viewpoint.

Lets take Poor Orc Ville: The ugly buildings are little more then small shacks made out of broken, mismatched logs and dried mud. Several ugly adult orcs, wearing only loincloths sit around in the dirt not doing anything. A group of young ugly orc children play in the mud with a deflated leather ball. The grocery shack has nothing but empty shelves, and the ugly orc out front is slowly skinning a rat on a stump.

And Rich Elf Ville: The beautiful buildings are built around trees and made out of fine white and gold colored wood all seamlessly melded together. Several beautiful adult elves, wearing only shimmering weave togas float on cousins of air listing to a harp play by itself. A group of young cute elven children run through a field full of flowers trying to catch some butterflies. The grocery store is full of a wide selection of foods, and the beautiful elf out front is slowly carving a punkin on a table.

Now it's easy to tell rich and poor. You will note the Adjectives used, as well as the nouns. But also note the very Human Centric(even more so ''Western middle class Earth'') View Point.

So how about Kobold Ville: The small buildings are made out of stone blocks of mismatched colors and all fit together to make round shapes. Several adult kobold's, wearing white one piece outfits, sit on wooden chairs in a clear spot. A group of young kobolds play with a couple reeds in a field. The grocery store is about half full of a section of foods, and the kobold out front is mixing in a bowl.

So, is Kobold Ville Rich or Poor? Can you tell?

So, now lets here from you. Write a description of a Poor Place and a Rich Place. How do you describe them? How about a description of a place ''in the middle''? How would you describe that? What words do you use?

[Honest Tiefling]

I think one major problem is that you'd be able to tell very poor people apart from more well to do strata simply because one is starving, the other is not. The signs of ill-health brought on by malnutrition would probably be visible enough across many humanoid races.

Another problem is, players probably understand how kobold wealth and status work if kobolds are a major player in politics. If it is an unknown, then that is different and time to break out the skill checks. If kobolds regularly trade with the places the players come from, they might and should be told a thing or two.

[jedipotter]

I think one major problem is that you'd be able to tell very poor people apart from more well to do strata simply because one is starving, the other is not. The signs of ill-health brought on by malnutrition would probably be visible enough across many humanoid races.

I agree that you can tell very poor and very rich apart. But after that.....not so much.



Another problem is, players probably understand how kobold wealth and status work if kobolds are a major player in politics. If it is an unknown, then that is different and time to break out the skill checks. If kobolds regularly trade with the places the players come from, they might and should be told a thing or two.

Well, I was not trying to bring race into this....really that could take another whole thread ''Description and Viewpoints:The Race Scroll''. But first I don't go for ''all kobolds eat nuts'' and more then I go for ''all humans eat apples''. And second, I don't go for the idea of an adventurer being a expert on culture.

[Honest Tiefling]

They wouldn't be experts, but that means that someone can pull a fast one on them easily. However, in most settings there is a form of cultural exchange happening, so it would not be surprising for a PC from a city to know the basics of a few other cultures. Else they'd offend people, get into trouble, and in many cases, be crap at basic jobs, and perhaps even break cultural laws and taboos. People learn the skills needed to survive, after all.

[goto124]

The kobolds may be 'poor' from a strictly economical point of view, but certainly not destitute. It's like a tribe- they may not have a lot of money, but they don't suffer a lot from lack of food/etc either. There's more between 'poor' and 'rich'.

Edit: Poor Orc Ville may be like what I described actually o-o Just that it appears more bleak due to the words used - ugly, deflated, dirty. Change the words, change the tone.

Let's see if someone can describe a 'rich' place such that it's also 'bleak', like some sort of dystopia.

[Troacctid]

If I don't have any special reason to emphasize how wealthy a town is, my tendency is to just use the size of the town as a shorthand. A small rural town has little wealth; a big city has lots. If it's important to the plot, it's easy enough to add details to that effect, as the OP points out. If it's not important, then I wouldn't place any emphasis on the matter. Conservation of Detail and whatnot.

Generally, I don't think the information is going to be hidden if the players seek it out. If they were in a city and they asked me "Does this look like a wealthy part of town?" I would elaborate on my description as appropriate. But I'd be unlikely to offer the information unprompted, because a. coming up with "Show, Don't Tell"-style descriptions on the fly is hard and b. it's probably not relevant anyway.

[jedipotter]

Edit: Poor Orc Ville may be like what I described actually o-o Just that it appears more bleak due to the words used - ugly, deflated, dirty. Change the words, change the tone.


That is a lot of my point. The description sets the tone. But only for the extremes. When you get to the middle it's a toss up.

[Svata]

Lets break this down.



Now this sort of thing comes up in my games all the time. A lot of players expect things to be ''simple and easy'' to figure out. I don't share that viewpoint.

It should be fairly easy to get a rough estimate, yes.


Lets take your examples, and note what I empasise


Lets take Poor Orc Ville: The ugly buildings are little more then small shacks made out of broken, mismatched logs and dried mud. Several ugly adult orcs, wearing only loincloths sit around in the dirt not doing anything. A group of young ugly orc children play in the mud with a deflated leather ball. The grocery shack has nothing but empty shelves, and the ugly orc out front is slowly skinning a rat on a stump.

(didn't emphasise "in the mud", because that gives no evidence. All kids play in the mud.) Note the quantity of detailed descriptions.


And Rich Elf Ville: The beautiful buildings are built around trees and made out of fine white and gold colored wood all seamlessly melded together. Several beautiful adult elves, wearing only shimmering weave togas float on cousins of air listing to a harp play by itself. A group of young cute elven children run through a field full of flowers trying to catch some butterflies. The grocery store is full of a wide selection of foods, and the beautiful elf out front is slowly carving a pumpkin on a table.

Once again, note detailed descriptions.


So how about Kobold Ville: The small buildings are made out of stone blocks of mismatched colors and all fit together to make round shapes. Several adult kobold's, wearing white one piece outfits, sit on wooden chairs in a clear spot. A group of young kobolds play with a couple reeds in a field. The grocery store is about half full of a section of foods, and the kobold out front is mixing in a bowl.

Note the lack of detail in the descriptions. The buildings are small, yes, but so are kobolds. The stone is mismatched, this could hint being poor quality, but maybe kobolds just like their buildings not to be bland. White outfits indifate cleanliness, but tell us nothing of the quality of the outfits, are they little more than rags? Are they simple, yet well-made? Are they obviously made of quality material, such as silk or cotton? Who knows! Wooden chairs indicatenothing, as, once again, we knownaught if their quality. The grocery store is half-full, but is it because they had a sale? Was it recently a holiday? Maybe everyone just got paid recently, and went shopping. Maybe the community is on the poor side.

In response, I can't tell you, as you skimped on (non-ambiguous) detail, but assume it is likely somewhat poor.

[jedipotter]

In response, I can't tell you, as you skimped in detail, but assume it is likely somewhat poor.

That is my point. Just put ''average'' before all the kobold stuff if it helps. You can't tell how poor or rich the ''average'' kobolds are by the description.

[Troacctid]

Uh...sure...if you don't describe something, your players won't have a detailed description of it...so what?

[Red Fel]

That is my point. Just put ''average'' before all the kobold stuff if it helps. You can't tell how poor or rich the ''average'' kobolds are by the description.

So... What does that accomplish? Using only generic, "average" descriptions, I mean. What's the goal?

I can understand a wealthy community showing off its wealth. In which case, the luxury would be obvious. I can understand an impoverished community lacking anything to show; again, the poverty would be obvious. I can even understand a wealthy community actively concealing its wealth, trying almost too hard to appear impoverished.

What I don't understand is why a DM would give only generic, nondescript words to describe the community. Sure, if the PCs are walking past a handful of unimportant buildings and you want to hurry them along, you might just wave them off as "some nondescript buildings," and be done with it. But the whole community?

I'm a firm believer in everything I do, as a DM, having a purpose. Encounters serve a purpose. NPCs serve a purpose. And descriptions - or a lack thereof - are a deliberate choice on my part.

So what I'm asking, in a roundabout way, is this: Yes, if you give generic descriptions, your PCs have no way of knowing the relative wealth in a community (nor anything else, for that matter). But why do that to begin with?

[DreganHiregard]

Just adding in my two cents here since I'm in the process of writing an entire dnd handbook about food. There's something I want to point out. The poor don't starve.

I know that sounds odd and goes against our baseline perception of poor towns but consider it carefully. Even in very poor communities the shelves aren't empty and the people aren't wasting away in the streets. This kind of thing happens during periods of extremely high temporary taxes, during droughts or famine's, or if an area is overpopulated but there few communities or areas in history where this is a naturally occurring thing all the time. People don't live where there's no food if they can help it, and nobles can't survive by starving their farmers to death. Instead consider the /quality/ of the food. Certainly poor communities don't have spices, or variety, they may have to eat local crops every day, but even then a vendor will still have something to sell as long as their open, if they have nothing to sell they're closed for the day getting supplies. Describing closed stores and empty shelves is a great way to signal players that something awful has, or is, happening.

That being said, it is definitely not too hard to tell if you're in a poor town vs a more profitable more successful town. My advice is to provide as much or little detail as you need. If the players are just passing through, a few words about how the food seems "bland" or how there's a lack of variety can do wonders, or you could even save time by just telling them it seems like a impoverished town. It's a bit of a cheat but most players won't mind.

Lastly, keep in mind humans, and other races are naturally inclined to diversify their palette. Even a town with just 4 staples foods will find different and creative ways to eat them and keeps things as different as possible.

[Zanos]

I don't know about you JP, but I can get get a pretty good idea of the amount of wealth generally present in an area just by driving through a town. I sincerely doubt that the wealth discrepancy was less noticeable in medieval fantasy Europe.

[Svata]

That is my point. Just put ''average'' before all the kobold stuff if it helps. You can't tell how poor or rich the ''average'' kobolds are by the description.

The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.

[jedipotter]

So what I'm asking, in a roundabout way, is this: Yes, if you give generic descriptions, your PCs have no way of knowing the relative wealth in a community (nor anything else, for that matter). But why do that to begin with?

I don't. It was said in the first post that character ''should just be able to tell'' somehow about a town from just walking around and looking. I say that only works for rich and poor, plus it does not take into account race and culture.


I don't know about you JP, but I can get get a pretty good idea of the amount of wealth generally present in an area just by driving through a town. I sincerely doubt that the wealth discrepancy was less noticeable in medieval fantasy Europe.

Ok, but describe it. Not rich or poor..again as has been said that is easy. Describe three ''middle spots'' and what visual clues do you use to say ''this place has more money then that place?"


The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.

Is the rule: Don't talk about the club?

[Troacctid]

I don't. It was said in the first post that character ''should just be able to tell'' somehow about a town from just walking around and looking. I say that only works for rich and poor, plus it does not take into account race and culture.

Okay, uh, those are true statements. I don't understand the point you're trying to make with them. If you don't want your players to know whether a town is wealthy, why don't you just say "It's not immediately obvious to your characters how rich or poor this neighborhood is"? Also, why should they care?

Are you saying it's not possible to describe a town such that it sounds neither rich nor poor but somewhere in the middle?

[jedipotter]

Are you saying it's not possible to describe a town such that it sounds neither rich nor poor but somewhere in the middle?

I don't think it's possible, no. Rich and poor are easy. But how do you describe anything else?

The big problem is the Viewpoints.....what people think of things. If you say ''beautiful Ivory and Gold tower'', then players will think ''rich''. If you say ''ugly wooden shack'' they think ''poor''. So how do you describe anything in the middle. Like ''just a stone house''. And how do you get the point across to the players, that is the big one. I can say ''A weather beaten stone house with a wooden roof, that shows some signs of age, but you can see recent repairs''. Ok, so is that a rich house or a poor house or what? Some people hear ''old'' and think ''must be poor as a rich person would have a new building'' or any of a dozen other things.

That is why I asked for descriptions from other people.

[Honest Tiefling]

That'd depend greatly upon 1) Does a middle class even exist? Are there average houses to even describe? 2) If this class exists, what are the standards? For us, a two room house is pretty bad, for certain time periods that's pretty swanky! 3) What are the fashions and attitudes of the era? Whitewashing has become popular (or was, I don't keep up with house trends) but it used to be a sign of pauperdom. Without a frame of reference, it'd be hard to describe anything.

[big teej]

I don't think it's possible, no. Rich and poor are easy. But how do you describe anything else?

The big problem is the Viewpoints.....what people think of things. If you say ''beautiful Ivory and Gold tower'', then players will think ''rich''. If you say ''ugly wooden shack'' they think ''poor''. So how do you describe anything in the middle. Like ''just a stone house''. And how do you get the point across to the players, that is the big one. I can say ''A weather beaten stone house with a wooden roof, that shows some signs of age, but you can see recent repairs''. Ok, so is that a rich house or a poor house or what? Some people hear ''old'' and think ''must be poor as a rich person would have a new building'' or any of a dozen other things.

That is why I asked for descriptions from other people.

I'd argue that it's idiosyncratic to any given group.

for example, the core of my current gaming group has been playing together (almost) every sunday for 4-5ish hours for the past 4 and a half years.

they intuitively know the appropriate connotative/dennotative meanings of my word choices.

in a similar vein, can description not be understood in the same way?

or, God forbid, with a tiny little questioning?

Rich: "golden and ivory towers and whatnot"

upper middle class: You arrive at Mr. Example's house to find a simple, well made stone building that has *minor ostentation* and *minor sign of improved quality*

middle class: you arrive at Mr. Example's house and find a Simple, well made, stone house that seems to be in good working order.

lower middle class: you arrive at Example's house and find a simple, well made stone building that seems to be slightly worse for wear, some of the mortar is cracked and chipped, and the fence enclosing the yard needs a new coat of paint/has gone to rot in some places.

poor: "delapidated and mud-splattered and whatnot"


and if these are so horrendously unclear to a player, any who cares can simply ask some iteration of "how affluent do I feel this description to be?"

I'm a huge fan of transparency, and if my descriptions and narrations are not up to the task of conveying information I wish the players to have, then what is wrong with simply telling them "hey, you're in the rich snooty part of town." or "hey, it's the slums, mind your purse"?

[Troacctid]

I don't think it's possible, no. Rich and poor are easy. But how do you describe anything else?

The big problem is the Viewpoints.....what people think of things. If you say ''beautiful Ivory and Gold tower'', then players will think ''rich''. If you say ''ugly wooden shack'' they think ''poor''. So how do you describe anything in the middle. Like ''just a stone house''. And how do you get the point across to the players, that is the big one. I can say ''A weather beaten stone house with a wooden roof, that shows some signs of age, but you can see recent repairs''. Ok, so is that a rich house or a poor house or what? Some people hear ''old'' and think ''must be poor as a rich person would have a new building'' or any of a dozen other things.

That is why I asked for descriptions from other people.

Oh, well, that's a challenge, but it's hardly impossible. I would shoot for a Suburban Americana vibe: a small, flourishing vegetable garden, a short cobblestone walkway, a picket fence, a clean coat of paint on the walls--well-kept, but simple, nothing ostentatious.

[Yahzi]

A lot of players expect things to be ''simple and easy'' to figure out.
Gah.

You are missing two rather important points.

1. Bandwidth. Your players can only see what you describe. How fast do you talk? Imagine downloading a picture at 300 baud - not the 1,000,000 bits/second rate you are used to, but 300 bits/second. People normally work on more than just a description of a picture. They have sound, smell, tactile sense. They can read volumes from a brief grimace at the right time in the middle of a sentence. A picture is worth a 1,000 words and all that. Your description of KoboldVille is 73 words.

2. Context. Your players are playing characters. These characters grew up in this world. They know things your players don't, like how to swing a sword or cast a spell or ride a horse. When a PC is evaluating whether or not 250 gp is a good price for a horse, and that PC has a Riding skill of 20, don't you think it would be absurd to force the player to listen to your description of the horse's teeth and then make a decision on his own? Then what is the Appraise skill even for? PCs should be told knowledge that their characters would already know. They don't have to ask, they just know, the same way you just know when you see a Goth poseur.

Of course sometimes things are ambiguous. But they are not ambiguous because your players don't understand them, or because your players failed to decipher them from the necessarily limited information you gave them. They are ambiguous because the character doesn't understand them.

The correct description of KoboldVille is: "The kobold buildings are utterly foreign. Everything is mismatched and mis-aligned, even while the details are finely wrought and the surfaces polished to a gleaming finish. You can't even tell if they are rich or poor." That is correct description because what you are trying to communicate is that the characters are out of their ordinary depth; they are in some extraordinary situation where they have to be extra-careful. Like Chekov's gun, they are now primed to expect difficulty: an ordinary greeting turns out to be a challenge to the death, etc.

The other way is just you saying, "Haha guess what I am thinking."

[Alent]

All three of those descriptions look like failed spot checks to me, because they aren't really looking AT anything as much as OVER everything.

The distinction is important, as is one more we need to clarify before moving on: There's a difference between being poor and having a shortage of things.

This distinction is also important.


Lets take Poor Orc Ville: The ugly buildings are little more then small shacks made out of broken, mismatched logs and dried mud. Several ugly adult orcs, wearing only loincloths sit around in the dirt not doing anything. A group of young ugly orc children play in the mud with a deflated leather ball. The grocery shack has nothing but empty shelves, and the ugly orc out front is slowly skinning a rat on a stump.

This village, for example, isn't necessarily poor. What's the MOOD of the town? Why are the orcs just sitting around? Is their mood positive? What sort of other shuffling movements are going on? Is the guy carving there to distract you from the thief behind you? What makes this place poor?

This may take several spot checks, listen checks, gather information, and sense motive checks. Maybe "poor orc ville" has an empty grocery shack because the shaman hasn't made his food conjuration rounds yet. Perhaps someone came through ahead of you and cleared the place out in preparation for a campaign, and the empty Grocery is your plot hook. Inquiring may reveal that the Grocers have had a good business week and they've got runners out buying food to resupply with.

The thing about a village suffering a detrimental shortage of food, there's a desperation and fear in the air that's tangible. I don't get that description from the above. What I see is a small tribal settlement with kids being kids and the guy the hunting party left behind killing time. A food shortage may be revealed by gathering more information, but for all we know there's an underground icehouse behind the village that's full of preserved food that some employees are loading on carts to restock the grocery hut, and the guy out front is making himself a souvenir out of a pest he caught while the place was empty.

The tribe may not actually be poor, either. There are stories and legends of millionaires living like poor people simply because they prefer the lifestyle. This could just be the ancestral way and success hasn't tainted it. Again, more information is required to discern that.


And Rich Elf Ville: The beautiful buildings are built around trees and made out of fine white and gold colored wood all seamlessly melded together. Several beautiful adult elves, wearing only shimmering weave togas float on cousins[sic] of air listing to a harp play by itself. A group of young cute elven children run through a field full of flowers trying to catch some butterflies. The grocery store is full of a wide selection of foods, and the beautiful elf out front is slowly carving a punkin on a table.

You say this is the Rich-elf town, but ask yourself: what would this place look like if it was poor or suffering a shortage problem?

To say nothing of the question, "what is wealth to these people?".

Back to the Orcs for a moment. What do the Orcs, or the elves, really value? This is a problem when trying to evaluate societies that run with an entirely different concept of wealth.

A common stereotype is that the orcs value strength and skill as a warrior. As such, loincloths may be preferential clothing to show off scars, tattoos, or other social symbols. Those orcs just lounging around? They might be covered in tattoos, scars, and piercings that denote their rank, and they're lounging around because it's "go work the fields" day and don't have to because they're rich... from a certain point of view. (The only one that matters to them- their own)

Now we flip back to the Elves. How does an Elf determine wealth in the society you've described? This is a question that should shape your description.

Here, I'll describe an "average wealth" place with an arbitrarily random name.


Your wagon approaches the Village of L'kadra. All around for miles you see picturesque farmland against a backdrop of tall trees, which occasionally creep in on the farmland and form natural fences that separate one farm from another. As you reach the outskirts you notice children playing with whirlygigs in an Alfalfa field as people that might be their parents are hard at work in a nearby cotton field. From around their location a man's voice can be heard shouting instructions at the workers.

(Perception + Detect Magic) Surges of divine magic can be felt from their general direction.

(knowledge nature) There appears to be a druid there, calling upon swarms of bats to aid him in dealing with an insect infestation you are too far away to identify.

As you continue past the fields, you see more workers in teams working the fields with the same techniques as the workers you first spotted. After several hours you come into town, seeing whitewashed wooden houses and shops built in the style that is typical of the region, with the exception of a large three story stone building marked as the National Merchant's Guild house, several merchants appear to be coming and going along as normal, with runners coming and going down from various parts of town.

(Sense Motive)Some of the merchants seem to have an air of concern about them, others seem confidant.

(Profession(Merchant)) The Guild's outdoor exchange board shows nothing trending, but cotton is marked as being slightly more valuable than normal and the cereal crops seem to be in demand. A glance around reveals that most of the confidant merchants appear to have carts full of food goods.

(Gather Information)The concerned Merchants are here to try to make advance arrangements with farmers, and the local weevil problem is making it a risky proposition. There's also some talk about the druids being shorthanded.

Continuing inside, as you go past the horse and cart stalls, and discover in the great hall that there are several druids, guild officials, and people who look like businessmen standing around a map of the greater L'kadra region, dotted with dancing lights. An individual in fine clothes occasionally manipulates parts of the map with magic as runners arrive.

(Knowledge Arcane)bard, prestidigitation.

As you approach, one of the businessmen notices and points you out to the guild officials, who come and greet you and your company.

"Excellent, we are glad to see you finally arrive, I trust you have experience dealing in Fae infestations?"

This whole sequence basically describes an average yet successful pre-industrial farming town: Not well off, but one crop failure away from hardship. You might think it poor, but none of the people here would describe themselves as such- they're still able to buy food, books, building supplies, etc. If you dig further you'll learn that while they're concerned about food that it won't be an issue until much later in the year, and even then conjured food and successful hunting in the outlying woods will make it next year's problem. The Druids can protect enough crop to keep the town afloat, but not enough to solve the problem themselves.

If I were actually going to run this, I'd sit down and work out actual DCs while trying to add more people to read, perhaps coming up with descriptions of the different shops and making it branch a little more. If the players ask, the tavern is closed and will not open until supper time.

The woods, of course, are the adventure destination- The Weevil problems are because someone from town killed a Fae's favorite stag, and the angry spirit decided to drive out the humans by attacking their livelihood. The druids are struggling to do damage control, since they couldn't stop the Fae through diplomacy, were unwilling to resort to violence, and now they have their hands full just trying to save the fields. They fear that the balance of nature and civilization will become even more offset if the townspeople begin hunting in the forest regularly, to say nothing of what the fae will do in retaliation if it comes to that.

Adventure details aside, note that, for the most part, this looks like a thriving village. If you fail the information gathering checks, you would never see the challenges that affect the area. This is pretty much par for the course for any "average" town- it's also the reason why "Average" towns make great tourist traps.

I don't really feel comfortable trying to run this scenario in an "alien" culture like Orcs, Elves, or Kobolds. You'd have to work out their sense of value and determine from there what meets that sense of value while not being overly abundant.

(and for anyone who cares, it's my general assumption that prestidigitation can do the job of a Cotton Gin.)

[atemu1234]

From someone who's worked with the poor, it usually is difficult to tell. This surprises a lot of people, but most people are ashamed of being poor and needing help, so they hide it. That's why so many people in wealthy neighborhoods are so underwater in mortgages; they take out loans just to appear normal.

The same can apply in a D&D 'verse. The poor don't have to go around begging for cash or looking like they're starving to death. No, they could hide it just as actively as a modern person.

[Deophaun]

Lets take Poor Orc Ville: The ugly buildings are little more then small shacks made out of broken, mismatched logs and dried mud. Several ugly adult orcs, wearing only loincloths sit around in the dirt not doing anything. A group of young ugly orc children play in the mud with a deflated leather ball. The grocery shack has nothing but empty shelves, and the ugly orc out front is slowly skinning a rat on a stump.
This place is actually rich. How can I tell? Because the merchants here, even lowly food vendors, can afford actual buildings in which to sell their goods, as opposed to street stalls.

Which is the problem with trying to convey otherwise obvious information through description alone: your interpretation is not the player's.

[Earthwalker]

What happens when after the description a player asks.

So does this place seem to be lower, middle or upper class to me.
If middle class how high up does it seem ?

[Deadline]

So how about Kobold Ville: The small buildings are made out of stone blocks of mismatched colors and all fit together to make round shapes. Several adult kobold's, wearing white one piece outfits, sit on wooden chairs in a clear spot. A group of young kobolds play with a couple reeds in a field. The grocery store is about half full of a section of foods, and the kobold out front is mixing in a bowl.

So, is Kobold Ville Rich or Poor? Can you tell?

Assuming you aren't trying to "pull a fast one" by leaving your description purposely vague, then I'd say the Kobold Village would fall between the Orcs and the Elves on the apparent wealth scale.

There's obviously a ton of extra description you could have added. Do the stone houses appear dilapidated? Are they well-made? Is everything made to be sturdy and functional? Are the white one piece outfits all dirty and ragged or are they generally clean and well cared for? To a lesser extent, do the inhabitants appear to be at ease, on edge, starving, etc.? An average appearing village is probably productive, but not particularly wealthy or poor. So yes, the players should have a rough idea of how wealthy the place is. Now, that doesn't mean it will always be the case. Maybe the Kobolds hide their wealth, and only put out a facade of ordinariness to fool outsiders (for some reason). Maybe those Orcs are wealthy in other ways than coin. Perhaps those elves are the dying remnants of some long crumbled empire, their fabulous appearance and things being the only wealth they have remaining, and when the food they have runs out, they'll begin to starve (again, for some reason). That, however, should not be the norm. Those things are called twists, and should not be overused (don't go to the M. Night Shyamalan school of DMing!).

Additionally, forcing players to ask about stuff that should be immediately obvious is generally a sign that you may not be describing things well enough. (i.e. Telling players that there is a door at the end of that dungeon hall. What kind of door? Wooden? Iron Banded? Metal? Stone? Is there an obvious handle? Does it have a window?). That sort of thing just wastes everyone's time getting at details that should have been instantly obvious. As long as those details don't wind up being relevant, then sure, it doesn't matter, but usually those sorts of details are important.

[Svata]

Is the rule: Don't talk about the club?

Here. (xkcd.com/703)

Also, you don't know what a tautology is, do you?

[jedipotter]

Also, you don't know what a tautology is, do you?

The Study of Tauntauns?

[georgie_leech]

The Study of Tauntauns?

The relevant definition is one where you're being redundant. "The beginner who has just started." "The veteran who fought in a war." "My brother is related to me." "If I don't tell my players the whole picture they don't have the whole picture."

[Red Fel]

The relevant definition is one where you're being redundant. "The beginner who has just started." "The veteran who fought in a war." "My brother is related to me." "If I don't tell my players the whole picture they don't have the whole picture."

If you enjoy a discussion of tautologies half as much as I do, I'll enjoy a discussion of tautologies twice as much as you do.

[Deophaun]

If you enjoy a discussion of tautologies half as much as I do, I'll enjoy a discussion of tautologies twice as much as you do.
If this thread doesn't get back on topic, it will stay off topic.

[SiuiS]

Now this sort of thing comes up in my games all the time. A lot of players expect things to be ''simple and easy'' to figure out. I don't share that viewpoint.

It's not about simple and easy to figure out. It's about cause and effect; making things harder to figure out or making effects disconnected from all probably causes just to shake players is a terrible action and is basically trolling for the sake of it.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm not even sure many people would even say that they should automatically figure it out, but instead use skills to figure it out. Appraise, Sense Motive and Diplomacy would be big contenders for this task.

[jedipotter]

It's not about simple and easy to figure out. It's about cause and effect; making things harder to figure out or making effects disconnected from all probably causes just to shake players is a terrible action and is basically trolling for the sake of it.

What?

Guess this will just be a never-ending problem.

[atemu1234]

What?

Guess this will just be a never-ending problem.

To sum up, he said your response to players wanting to figure things out easily was to make it follow no logical pattern and therein be impossible to solve. Therefore, the only solution is to sever the knot, as it were.

[jedipotter]

To sum up, he said your response to players wanting to figure things out easily was to make it follow no logical pattern and therein be impossible to solve. Therefore, the only solution is to sever the knot, as it were.

What did what?

Here is the problem:

DM The farm house is well made from cut wood. The house is painted bright white and is mostly clean. The house has several, glassless windows with brown wooden shutters. Flowers have been planted in narrow rows in front of the house. [/I

So later the PC's attack the house, kill everyone inside and get the 11 gold coins in the house. Then it's [I]Aww, man, you described it as such a rich persons house.

Now, glass, is one of my key words. I think glass in the 14th century of my game world is rare. It's both expensive and hard to move. So most people just don't bother. Glass, by itself, does not indicate rich, but it's sure a sign.

But somehow the players thought that the farm house was a rich house.....but why?

[atemu1234]

What did what?

Here is the problem:

DM The farm house is well made from cut wood. The house is painted bright white and is mostly clean. The house has several, glassless windows with brown wooden shutters. Flowers have been planted in narrow rows in front of the house. [/I

So later the PC's attack the house, kill everyone inside and get the 11 gold coins in the house. Then it's [I]Aww, man, you described it as such a rich persons house.

Now, glass, is one of my key words. I think glass in the 14th century of my game world is rare. It's both expensive and hard to move. So most people just don't bother. Glass, by itself, does not indicate rich, but it's sure a sign.

But somehow the players thought that the farm house was a rich house.....but why?

Because your PCs did not pick up on your inane, nitpicky detail?

I fail to see how this leads back to the previous point. Please elaborate, as I tried to do for you.

[Honest Tiefling]

In this example, did the players ask for clarification or try to determine the wealth of the place?

[goto124]

Because your PCs did not pick up on your inane, nitpicky detail?

I fail to see how this leads back to the previous point. Please elaborate, as I tried to do for you.

JP said he believes things should not be easy to figure out. He then gave an example of a difficult-to-pick-up clue. I'm deliberately not saying my views on whether JP's clue was too obscure.



In this example, did the players ask for clarification or try to determine the wealth of the place?

Probably not. The players assumed the man was rich, and never thought to challenge that assumption. Not sure why the players wouldn't have said 'Let's robe him since he's rich', which would've let the DM on the players' thinking...

[jedipotter]

In this example, did the players ask for clarification or try to determine the wealth of the place?

My groups style of game play is ''The DM does not tell the players free stuff'' and the ''players don't tell the DM free stuff''. Players often try to ''surprise'' the DM, but not asking follow up questions. If they asked a bunch of questions about the white farm house, the DM would know they are interested it in.


JP said he believes things should not be easy to figure out. He then gave an example of a difficult-to-pick-up clue. I'm deliberately not saying my views on whether JP's clue was too obscure.


Right, not easy, but not impossible. Again ''rich'' and ''poor'' are easy, the ''everything else'' gets vague.

It's like the group wants to kill a wizard and get a (new) spellbook for Zarnab the Spellbookless. They find a nice isolated tower just outside of town on the sea shore...

DM The tower looks to me made a bright pink coral and about 30 feet tall. It has a single front wooden door. The only windows are up about 20 feet or so, and there are three windows spaces around the tower. The roof is wood, painted white and pointed.

Now, the PC's took one glance at the tower and ran, sure an archmage lived there as the tower looked ''so expensive''.

[georgie_leech]

My groups style of game play is ''The DM does not tell the players free stuff'' and the ''players don't tell the DM free stuff''. Players often try to ''surprise'' the DM, but not asking follow up questions. If they asked a bunch of questions about the white farm house, the DM would know they are interested it in.



Right, not easy, but not impossible. Again ''rich'' and ''poor'' are easy, the ''everything else'' gets vague.

It's like the group wants to kill a wizard and get a (new) spellbook for Zarnab the Spellbookless. They find a nice isolated tower just outside of town on the sea shore...

DM The tower looks to me made a bright pink coral and about 30 feet tall. It has a single front wooden door. The only windows are up about 20 feet or so, and there are three windows spaces around the tower. The roof is wood, painted white and pointed.

Now, the PC's took one glance at the tower and ran, sure an archmage lived there as the tower looked ''so expensive''.

Has it occurred to you that by setting up an environment that encourages Players vs DM, you encourage "problem players" in that such an environment encourages the players act against the DM's plans (that are likely to try and kill them)?

[Milo v3]

My groups style of game play is ''The DM does not tell the players free stuff'' and the ''players don't tell the DM free stuff''. Players often try to ''surprise'' the DM, but not asking follow up questions. If they asked a bunch of questions about the white farm house, the DM would know they are interested it in.

So basically the issue is... Your players aren't getting specific details, then they don't asking questions, leaving them with the only details being vague.... That sounds like a very self-destructive group :smallconfused:

[Honest Tiefling]

I would also imagine things quickly either turn into a game of 20 questions if the players have to ask about every obvious detail, or a game of murder-hobos when they stop trying.

[SiuiS]

What?

Guess this will just be a never-ending problem.

You are creating a false binary. It's not about things being easy or hard, and intentionally making it hard – as your opening post suggests – is mean and bad.

Things should follow from causes. Your most recent example; house has no glass because they people can't afford it; the people can't afford it because they are poor. That's fine.


To sum up, he said your response to players wanting to figure things out easily was to make it follow no logical pattern and therein be impossible to solve. Therefore, the only solution is to sever the knot, as it were.

Wrong gender.


What did what?

Here is the problem:

DM The farm house is well made from cut wood. The house is painted bright white and is mostly clean. The house has several, glassless windows with brown wooden shutters. Flowers have been planted in narrow rows in front of the house. [/I

So later the PC's attack the house, kill everyone inside and get the 11 gold coins in the house. Then it's [I]Aww, man, you described it as such a rich persons house.

Now, glass, is one of my key words. I think glass in the 14th century of my game world is rare. It's both expensive and hard to move. So most people just don't bother. Glass, by itself, does not indicate rich, but it's sure a sign.

But somehow the players thought that the farm house was a rich house.....but why?

This example is very different from what you started the thread with.

Something to remember; it's not a binary. It's not either the DM is wrong or the players are wrong; it can be both.


My groups style of game play is ''The DM does not tell the playerps free stuff'' and the ''players don't tell the DM free stuff''. Players often try to ''surprise'' the DM, but not asking follow up questions. If they asked a bunch of questions about the white farm house, the DM would know they are interested it in.


Why do you feel this is a bad thing?

[jedipotter]

Has it occurred to you that by setting up an environment that encourages Players vs DM, you encourage "problem players" in that such an environment encourages the players act against the DM's plans (that are likely to try and kill them)?

Well, the Buddy DM way is worse. I really don't like that way, and neither do most of my players.

And it has this big problem:

DM "Yea, that tower looks cool, but the wizard is weak, your group can handle him easily.
Players "Thanks Buddy DM, we attack the tower!"

And the even worse one where the DM describes three doors, but does not specifically go the Buddy DM route and say "Door three with the skulls looks too tough for your group, don't open it''.

So then a PC's touches door three and the character dies, and Player: No fair, you did not warn us!




Why do you feel this is a bad thing?

I like the players/character to know just about the same amount of information. It's much better for immersion and role playing if the player just plays their character during the game.

I really don't like the acting style where the DM tells the players things and the players just ''act'' out what their characters know(sort of).

And I do like it when the players do surprising things, but some players do the odd ''hide stuff from the DM'' to get surprise. I don't think that works well, but just ignore it.

[Milo v3]

Well, the Buddy DM way is worse. I really don't like that way, and neither do most of my players.

And it has this big problem:

DM "Yea, that tower looks cool, but the wizard is weak, your group can handle him easily.
Players "Thanks Buddy DM, we attack the tower!"


There is a place in between the two extremes, I am unsure why that is difficult to grasp.

[georgie_leech]

There is a place in between the two extremes, I am unsure why that is difficult to grasp.

Such as:

(Appraise, Knowledge (Nature)) "You notice that the tower appears to be made from natural materials, that wouldn't be especially difficult to acquire or work with."

(Knowledge (Local)) "You remember a rumour of a mad wizard of middling talent in the area, and suspect that this tower might be one of the reasons he's described as "mad."

(Spot) "You notice that [whichever door leads to where they're trying to go] is suspiciously dust-free, as if it's used more frequently than the others.

(Search) "You notice a cunningly placed ward, hidden in the design of the skull door. Though you are unsure of it's specific function, you imagine it's probably not a welcoming party."

(Knowledge (Arcana), (Dungeoneering)) "You know that ostentatious designs on entryways is a common means of disguising traps or wards."

(Sense Motive, Wisdom Check) "The door with the skulls gives you a powerful sense of foreboding, as if an aura of danger clings to it."

JP, notice how none of these rely on the DM telling the players what's a good idea or not, nor in saying what exactly will happen. They do, however, offer the players information with which to make an actual choice in game, rather than trying to metagame your desires or needing you to explicitly tell them what the correct choice is. While it may be easier to sit in a world of Black and White, you might find that exploring the middle leads to fewer problem players.

[SiuiS]

worse one where the DM describes three doors, but does not specifically go the Buddy DM route and say "Door three with the skulls looks too tough for your group, don't open it''.

So then a PC's touches door three and the character dies, and Player: No fair, you did not warn us!

This is not an example if a non-buddy DM. This is an example of not searching for traps.



I like the players/character to know just about the same amount of information.

Then why do you give the players less information than their characters would have?

[Kazyan]

Player: "So, is this place rich or poor?"

What I respond, depending on the situation:

A: "The buildings look nice, so, it's a nice town."
B: "There's a McSeedy's. What do you think?"
C: "Appraise check. Gather Information works too."
D: "I dunno; Knowledge (Local) to see if you know anything about Illumian [or other strange race] cabals."
E: "You've been here for a while, so you would know [description]"
F: "I dunno; are you going to walk through the slums or whatever to find out?"
G: "They're fey [or other strange race]. What is money."
H: "You can't tell by looking at the buildings because dwarves [or other strange race]; everything's underground. Or do you have another idea?"
I: "Technically poor? But that's just how nomads work. They're still happy."
J: "Like, 'adventurer' rich or 'NPC' rich?"
K: "Well, judging by the angry mob coming your way, poor. Roll initiative, by the way."

[kardar233]

Well, the Buddy DM way is worse. I really don't like that way, and neither do most of my players.

And it has this big problem:

DM "Yea, that tower looks cool, but the wizard is weak, your group can handle him easily.
Players "Thanks Buddy DM, we attack the tower!"

How would you feel about the players trying to find out what power level the wizard is, say, by making Spellcraft or Architecture skill checks to see what spells were used to make it, or Detect Magic to see what level spell effecsts are currently active in it?


And the even worse one where the DM describes three doors, but does not specifically go the Buddy DM route and say "Door three with the skulls looks too tough for your group, don't open it''.

So then a PC's touches door three and the character dies, and Player: No fair, you did not warn us!

Could you explain how this is different from your method, please? As you've explained it, the players have very little information and are likely to die with little warning, no?

[big teej]

does not indicate rich, but it's sure a sign.



I hate to nitpick....

but doesn't what comes after the comma contradict what comes before it?

a sign tends to indicate a given thing.

so.... to use your example

is glass indicative of a person's wealth or not? :smallconfused:

/nitpick

[georgie_leech]

I hate to nitpick....

but doesn't what comes after the comma contradict what comes before it?

a sign tends to indicate a given thing.

so.... to use your example

is glass indicative of a person's wealth or not? :smallconfused:

/nitpick

This one appears to be genuinely poor phrasing: "Having glass doesn't necessarily mean they're rich, but it's a sign they probably are, so not having glass is a sign they might be poor."

[Invader]

That is a lot of my point. The description sets the tone. But only for the extremes. When you get to the middle it's a toss up.

The problem is that you're very descriptive with the elves and orcs and purposely vague about the kobolds to make your point.

You're acting as though you can describe very rich and very poor but not average and that's simply not true.

[Red Fel]

You're acting as though you can describe very rich and very poor but not average and that's simply not true.

This. Look, I get that it's easier to describe extremes than moderation; that's true of anything. Temperature, wealth, attractiveness, sobriety, it's generally easier to say "very" than "only slightly." But just because describing a middling condition is harder doesn't make it impossible, nor does it mean that a DM intent on providing necessary detail has to skimp.

Look, how would you describe extremes of weather? "Sweltering" versus "freezing," "furious and stormy" versus "clear and sunny skies," that sort of thing. But you can describe an in-between day, too. "Mild, warm-but-not-scorching, partially cloudy, just generally pleasant."

Describing moderate wealth is the same. It's cozy and comfortable, but not opulent; it's not fancy, but they've got a good solid roof over their heads; the meal isn't elaborate, but it's filling and flavorful.

It's harder, but it can be done, and if a DM is intent on providing detail, he has no excuse to simply gloss over it.

[Alent]

Well, the Buddy DM way is worse. I really don't like that way, and neither do most of my players.

And it has this big problem:

DM "Yea, that tower looks cool, but the wizard is weak, your group can handle him easily.
Players "Thanks Buddy DM, we attack the tower!"

And the even worse one where the DM describes three doors, but does not specifically go the Buddy DM route and say "Door three with the skulls looks too tough for your group, don't open it''.

So then a PC's touches door three and the character dies, and Player: No fair, you did not warn us!

From this and your earlier example, your problem doesn't really sound like a lack of description, it seems more like your players consider what you do unfair in all cases, and are doing their best to compensate for one unfair action (Failure to follow WBL) with absolute paranoia and murderhobo behavior.

It's also a failure to weaponize the statement "Are you sure?" Never underestimate how paranoid you can make a player with just those three words.

[jedipotter]

There is a place in between the two extremes, I am unsure why that is difficult to grasp.

There is nothing in-between. the DM is a Good Buddy or they are not. You can't be a Buddy half way. Even if the DM ''says things in a roundabout-way'', they are still being a good buddy.

But, if there is a way to do it: Give the PC only the facts, with absolutely no indication from the DM as to the behind the description stuff. Please give me an example:



JP, notice how none of these rely on the DM telling the players what's a good idea or not, nor in saying what exactly will happen. They do, however, offer the players information with which to make an actual choice in game, rather than trying to metagame your desires or needing you to explicitly tell them what the correct choice is. While it may be easier to sit in a world of Black and White, you might find that exploring the middle leads to fewer problem players.

Most of your examples just give more information. It does not help anything. More information does not help, and it can get worse. Every bit of information can send a player off on wild tangents.

And the other half of your descriptions are just the Buddy stuff. ''The door makes you feel bad'' is just saying ''don't open this door''.


This is not an example if a non-buddy DM. This is an example of not searching for traps.


That is part of the problem with the Buddy Game: the players fall into the trap that ''our Buddy DM will let us know if something is dangerous to our characters, so we don't need to do things like check for traps''.



Then why do you give the players less information than their characters would have?

Because it's impossible to do. I don't like the ''oh, your character randomly remembers all about this totally random person, place or thing you encountered as your character has, somehow, heard about everything in the world''.

[Honest Tiefling]

Giving out the information that the character would have access to is a part of DMing properly. They need to construct (or know) a world, and be able to determine how this world has interacted with the characters and what information they have gleaned from it. The art of not nudging PCs into certain actions with metagame information nor being so stingy with information that the PCs might as well being a white void is again, another vital DMing skill. Sure, it takes some work at being good at both, but neither is insurmountable. This is why it is important for players to be able to ask for information, to both avoid an infodump of information that is hard to process at once, and to fill in gaps of the description...Such as wealth levels.

[kardar233]

Because it's impossible to do. I don't like the ''oh, your character randomly remembers all about this totally random person, place or thing you encountered as your character has, somehow, heard about everything in the world''.

Okay, I can see your point about characters not knowing about a number of things they've not encountered. I'd just like to get your thoughts about this example:

I'm playing a character called Caheira Raneth; she's a sorceress. Now, in the culture we're in (and that Caheira was raised in), all sorceresses are taken in by the Convent of Sorceresses for training, and they usually spend at least a decade there. Now, at some point in the campaign we arrive at the Convent. Could I ask the DM for some information regarding the Convent, seeing as Caheira spent ten years of her life there? If not, wouldn't it be kind of weird that Caheira doesn't remember anything about the Convent?

[big teej]

This one appears to be genuinely poor phrasing: "Having glass doesn't necessarily mean they're rich, but it's a sign they probably are, so not having glass is a sign they might be poor."

works for me.

I try (don't always succeed, but I do always try) to be very precise when communicating through a medium that lacks several cues important to conveying meaning (tone/inflection, body language, the ability to immediately ask for clarification, etc)

occasionally this spills over into me being overly nitpicky :smallredface:

[jedipotter]

Giving out the information that the character would have access to is a part of DMing properly.

The problem is not the information. The problem is the players translating the information.



I'm playing a character called Caheira Raneth; she's a sorceress. Now, in the culture we're in (and that Caheira was raised in), all sorceresses are taken in by the Convent of Sorceresses for training, and they usually spend at least a decade there. Now, at some point in the campaign we arrive at the Convent. Could I ask the DM for some information regarding the Convent, seeing as Caheira spent ten years of her life there? If not, wouldn't it be kind of weird that Caheira doesn't remember anything about the Convent?

This is backstory, and would be done before the game. So first the player would write up a backstory. The DM would look it over, edit it and make suggestions. The player would do a rewrite, DM looks it over and either approves it or not. Eventually the backstory would be approved, added to the game and absolutely taken away from any player control. As DM I'd encourage the player to add at least ''5 friends'', ''5 teachers'', ''5 enemies'' and so forth. If the player does not add them, the DM will add at least one of each and give some notes to the player.

So, if during the game, the character goes to the place, all the player has to go on are the notes.

[Honest Tiefling]

The problem is not the information. The problem is the players translating the information.

Either 1) The players have misinterpreted it. Either roll with it or retcon. However, players don't often have 18 intelligence, nor would it make sense for their characters to have misinterpreted it. Often breaks immersion, and players might spend too much time interpeting details without follow up information to avoid having their characters be complete idiots.

Or, 2) The DM was unclear. If the players have to memorize several entire cultures, then yes, they're likely to make a few mistakes especially if they do not have a huge history background. So...Why not just tell them what their PC would know, and just tell the players that no glass is a sign of poor wealth? Does it really break immersion to allow people who have made characters familiar with this culture and era to know that the house probably isn't all that rich if they have the skills to back it up?


This is backstory, and would be done before the game. So first the player would write up a backstory. The DM would look it over, edit it and make suggestions. The player would do a rewrite, DM looks it over and either approves it or not. Eventually the backstory would be approved, added to the game and absolutely taken away from any player control. As DM I'd encourage the player to add at least ''5 friends'', ''5 teachers'', ''5 enemies'' and so forth. If the player does not add them, the DM will add at least one of each and give some notes to the player.

So, if during the game, the character goes to the place, all the player has to go on are the notes.

Oh wow...So a character has to put down ALL information regarding their character before the game, and they know nothing of set pieces the DM likely introduced unless it is in the backstory? How long do you expect people to work on a backstory before the game? I know people like to joke that sorcerers are numbskulls, but this would would be a hard task to accomplish.

[OldTrees1]

There is nothing in-between. the DM is a Good Buddy or they are not. You can't be a Buddy half way. Even if the DM ''says things in a roundabout-way'', they are still being a good buddy.

There is a continuous between 3 major categories:
1) No information is available to the players
2) Information needed to make meaningful choices is available to the players
3) All information is available to the players

#2 is the goal most DMs aim for.

Say the party is walking down a corridor towards a door(which I, the DM, know has a pit trap in front of it). First I describe the corridor and the door. Only information that should be obvious. This rarely contains any information relevant to choices. Now, I know that the characters are smart enough to be making passive checks(aka they walk with their eyes open casually observing). I would make some passive spot checks to find out if the characters observe any traces of the trap. If they do, then I give the player the information the character obtained. Likewise I would be listening to what the players decide to do as they approach the door. Usually the Rogue's player decides to do some info gathering actions (tapping the ground with a pole, rolling marbles, detect magic, ...) before approaching dungeon doors. As the DM, I resolve any such actions and give any information they obtain.

Thus the players have to earn information for their meaningful choices but they do in fact gain the information needed to make meaningful choices.


Now occasionally the player's make poor choices based on the information they gain. Sometimes it is a result of me not communicating clearly. Sometimes they make a bad call. These things happen. If there was a translation error, then I (the person trying to communicate) will try to avoid that error in the future. If they made a bad call, then they (the people making the call) will try to learn from their mistake.

[jedipotter]

Oh wow...So a character has to put down ALL information regarding their character before the game, and they know nothing of set pieces the DM likely introduced unless it is in the backstory? How long do you expect people to work on a backstory before the game? I know people like to joke that sorcerers are numbskulls, but this would would be a hard task to accomplish.

Yes? I don't play the type of game were in the middle of game session 24 a player just says ''My character is King of Ivonta''. In my game that would need to be an approved part of the backstory. And really don't like when the game moves in the direction of where the PC's need an alchemist and a player says ''Oh, my character knows a super high level alchemist who will do anything for me for free''.

I expect about an hour work for a backstory. But it's not mandatory. If a player wants ''Grew up on a farm in Shadowdale and had a boring farm life'', that is fine with me.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think there's a drastic difference between 'I probably know something about this order I have been established to be from' and 'I'm now king'. The fact that your players only use 1 hour to write down everything they know is pretty impressive.

[Milo v3]

There is nothing in-between. the DM is a Good Buddy or they are not. You can't be a Buddy half way. Even if the DM ''says things in a roundabout-way'', they are still being a good buddy.
This is blatantly not true. I am not a "Buddy" GM or a "No-Information" GM, I give information on what the players can sense, and if necessary tell the player a fact they would know about it if they would blatantly know about it, if they want more information then they can ask but if the answer isn't something they would blatantly know they must roll the appropriate knowledge check.


So, if during the game, the character goes to the place, all the player has to go on are the notes.

... That makes no sense what so ever... @_@
Why does the character suddenly get amnesia?


Yes? I don't play the type of game were in the middle of game session 24 a player just says ''My character is King of Ivonta''. In my game that would need to be an approved part of the backstory.
That's completely irrelevant because players deciding things like that mid-game isn't the type of thing that is being discussed. :smallconfused:

[Troacctid]

There is nothing in-between. the DM is a Good Buddy or they are not. You can't be a Buddy half way. Even if the DM ''says things in a roundabout-way'', they are still being a good buddy.

But, if there is a way to do it: Give the PC only the facts, with absolutely no indication from the DM as to the behind the description stuff. Please give me an example:

I agree that information should generally be limited to what the players know in-character. There's no real need to insert out-of-character hints. Of course, you still need to be able to judge what the characters would know in the event that your players ask for clarification.

Player: What color is the mailbox?
DM: Red.
Player: Is there any mail in it?
DM: It's closed, so you can't tell.
Player: How tall is the house?
DM: Are you measuring it with your 10-foot pole? Taking out a sextant and doing trigonometry in your head? You don't know the house's exact height.
Player: Okay, is it taller than the surrounding trees?
DM: No, the trees are definitely taller.
Player: The house isn't walking around on chicken legs, is it?
DM: It is stationary. There are no chicken legs visible.

Etc.

[jedipotter]

This is blatantly not true. I am not a "Buddy" GM or a "No-Information" GM, I give information on what the players can sense, and if necessary tell the player a fact they would know about it if they would blatantly know about it, if they want more information then they can ask but if the answer isn't something they would blatantly know they must roll the appropriate knowledge check.

Sounds to me like your saying your the ''limited information''. Don't say ''no information'', as, of course the DM has to speak to play the game. The players would not even know that there was a door, unless the DM said ''there is a door''.



... That makes no sense what so ever... @_@
Why does the character suddenly get amnesia?

Makes sense to me. I don't like the idea that a character is an expert on everything, so I don't have that in my game.



That's completely irrelevant because players deciding things like that mid-game isn't the type of thing that is being discussed. :smallconfused:

Well, I'm not really sure how the ''characters know everything'' type of game works. I don't game that way.

[Deophaun]

Makes sense to me. I don't like the idea that a character is an expert on everything, so I don't have that in my game.
So if all the notes say is the character "grew up in a house on Baker's Street," then the character won't know where his bedroom in that house was, or even if he had a bedroom, and if he did, who, if anyone, he shared it with. He won't know the color of the house, or the number of rooms it had, whether it had a fireplace, who the neighbors were. He won't know about how it's downwind from a tannery. Heck, he won't even know which house on Baker's Street it was. All because it wasn't in the notes?

Bizarre.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, I'm not really sure how the ''characters know everything'' type of game works. I don't game that way.

And I'll bet no one else in this thread does either. I don't think anyone ever mentioned it. What people did mention was that people would know details that would come up naturally, not esoteric knowledge.

[jedipotter]

So if all the notes say is the character "grew up in a house on Baker's Street," then the character won't know where his bedroom in that house was, or even if he had a bedroom, and if he did, who, if anyone, he shared it with. He won't know the color of the house, or the number of rooms it had, whether it had a fireplace, who the neighbors were. He won't know about how it's downwind from a tannery. Heck, he won't even know which house on Baker's Street it was. All because it wasn't in the notes?

Right. This type of backstory stuff is done before the game. I'll encourage the player to add all the details, and add a bunch as DM, but that is it.


And I'll bet no one else in this thread does either. I don't think anyone ever mentioned it. What people did mention was that people would know details that would come up naturally, not esoteric knowledge.

It comes down to knowledge useful during the game. We are not talking about ''the character knows the name of a teddy bear''.

I'd guess it works like this:

Character walks down the street of the town they grew up in: Player only knows the game of the town.
Player: DM tell me everything my character knows about the town.

Sure some DMs do pointless skill checks, but with overly high totals the players simply can not roll low and not know something.

So the character will just, instantaneously say, ''Oh, I remember an alchemist that lives over on 3rd street'' And the group will go there...

[Honest Tiefling]

Er...Are you complaining that players are making up background details, complaining that people would stuff about the place they grew up in, or what? I'm actually a little confused by your example.

[Milo v3]

Sounds to me like your saying your the ''limited information''. Don't say ''no information'', as, of course the DM has to speak to play the game. The players would not even know that there was a door, unless the DM said ''there is a door''.
Your giving them practically no information, so in practice, you've given them no information.


Makes sense to me. I don't like the idea that a character is an expert on everything, so I don't have that in my game.
Accept we aren't talking about characters knowing everything, it's characters knowing what they would know... :smallmad:


Well, I'm not really sure how the ''characters know everything'' type of game works. I don't game that way.
Well, it's probably good that not a single person has suggested a 'characters know everything'' type of game then.

[jedipotter]

Er...Are you complaining that players are making up background details, complaining that people would stuff about the place they grew up in, or what? I'm actually a little confused by your example.

Just that the ''characters'' know things the player does not. But that other stuff too.


Your giving them practically no information, so in practice, you've given them no information.

No, it's safe to say they get a parapgraph for any single thing. So that is lots of information.



Accept we aren't talking about characters knowing everything, it's characters knowing what they would know... :smallmad:

It's the same thing, what others would say ''oh it's just what a character knows'' is what I would call ''everything''.



Well, it's probably good that not a single person has suggested a 'characters know everything'' type of game then.

Seems like a lot of games do it that way. And I've seen plenty of games run that way.

[Honest Tiefling]

No, it's safe to say they get a parapgraph for any single thing. So that is lots of information. It's the same thing, what others would say ''oh it's just what a character knows'' is what I would call ''everything''.

Just try to describe Paris in a single paragraph. As for the other point...That's like saying 6 is infinity. It isn't. It is things that characters would logically know, not deep buried secrets or the answer to all questions. I guess you could play it that way, but for me it would sorta ruin immersion and a great deal of the enjoyment of the game as my character is always going to feel false within the world. They don't know basic details, they're just...Not really a part of this world.

[Troacctid]

Well I mean it's pretty obvious the characters know things the players don't since the characters are there and can see what's happening without a middleman to relay the info. So they know the mailbox is red and the house doesn't have chicken legs. That's just obvious, that is.

[afroakuma]

Don't say ''no information'', as, of course the DM has to speak to play the game.

Why is it unacceptable for others to engage in hyperbole but fine for you to do so? :smallconfused:

Your examples are, as usual, incredibly spurious constructions meant to... I don't even know what. I'm at a loss for what the purpose of this, and frankly most of your threads, could be, since discussion seems secondary to either convincing others that your "supreme ruler" DM style is the only right way to play or to seek arguments that might persuade you otherwise. Nothing I've seen from you suggests the latter is, has or will ever be true. So... where is this thread off to? Would you be interested in a discussion about how to engage in constructing detail without committing the Conspicuously Light Patch error? Are you interested in sharing techniques of description and viewpoint with an eye to evoking a certain mood or style? Or is this just about how players shouldn't have information because they'll declare themselves King of All Cosmos?

[Forrestfire]

The problem is not the information. The problem is the players translating the information.


This is backstory, and would be done before the game. So first the player would write up a backstory. The DM would look it over, edit it and make suggestions. The player would do a rewrite, DM looks it over and either approves it or not. Eventually the backstory would be approved, added to the game and absolutely taken away from any player control. As DM I'd encourage the player to add at least ''5 friends'', ''5 teachers'', ''5 enemies'' and so forth. If the player does not add them, the DM will add at least one of each and give some notes to the player.

So, if during the game, the character goes to the place, all the player has to go on are the notes.

Where's the issue with doing both? Personally, if there's a major school, city, town, or something similar in a player's backstory, we'll generally work to flesh it out a bit so they have details to work off of, and then when it comes up, the player will get extra information that's relevant, and oftentimes the player and I will ad-lib details in realtime. It brings a lot of life to an area when that happens, since the player has investment in the stuff he makes up, and it helps me get ideas for the place that I couldn't think of myself. I'm sure this approach wouldn't work in your games, given the utter lack of trust you've described, but in the games I've played in, it's been great.

[jedipotter]

Just try to describe Paris in a single paragraph. As for the other point...That's like saying 6 is infinity. It isn't. It is things that characters would logically know, not deep buried secrets or the answer to all questions. I guess you could play it that way, but for me it would sorta ruin immersion and a great deal of the enjoyment of the game as my character is always going to feel false within the world. They don't know basic details, they're just...Not really a part of this world.

Well, my examples were things like a single sea side tower or a single house....not a whole city.

I do understand what your saying. But i like my way better. I keep the game mostly ''first person'', where the characters have to talk and interact with NPCs. I avoid the distant stuff like ''I talk to that guy and stuff''. In my game, we are going to role play the whole conversation. Not all the time, but more often then not. And I really try to encourage players to make their characters a part of the world. Even just two minutes of role-play make that an NPC your character now knows.

Assuming a player plays along, it's only a game or two before their character is immersed.

[Knaight]

Firstly, I find your attribution of the quote in the original post dubious (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18679649&postcount=24). Moving on:


I do understand what your saying. But i like my way better. I keep the game mostly ''first person'', where the characters have to talk and interact with NPCs. I avoid the distant stuff like ''I talk to that guy and stuff''. In my game, we are going to role play the whole conversation. Not all the time, but more often then not. And I really try to encourage players to make their characters a part of the world. Even just two minutes of role-play make that an NPC your character now knows.

This isn't somehow magically removed if the characters have knowledge the players don't. The crew of the Schrodinger's Hummingbird (the PCs) can be reasonably expected to have a working knowledge about technical specifications, ship design, locations of things on board ship, etc. The gunner on board said ship can reasonably expect to recognize most shipboard weapons to a significant degree. The players asking more about these things really don't need to be directed to some in character conversation with an NPC, that information can just be given.

When that same group of people is infiltrating Zaitsev Industries because Gibbs Research paid them to, and is trying to find out what the technology Zaitsev has even does and thus which experiment they're supposed to sabotage? They're going to have to talk to the researchers at Zaitsev.

[goto124]

"Would you be interested in a discussion about how to engage in constructing detail without committing the Conspicuously Light Patch error?"

As a player who looks for Conspicuously Light Patches when solving puzzles: I am.

[jedipotter]

This isn't somehow magically removed if the characters have knowledge the players don't. The crew of the Schrodinger's Hummingbird (the PCs) can be reasonably expected to have a working knowledge about technical specifications, ship design, locations of things on board ship, etc. The gunner on board said ship can reasonably expect to recognize most shipboard weapons to a significant degree. The players asking more about these things really don't need to be directed to some in character conversation with an NPC, that information can just be given.

Here is the part I don't like: you have to stop and derail the game almost every minute just so the DM can tell the players things their characters know.

A crew member of Schrodinger's Hummingbird would know a ton of stuff. The amount is so large that the player could never, ever know it all. If you were in the Navy on a ship(on anything smaller then an Aircraft Carrier) you get to know your crew mates very well. In just a couple of weeks, you will know everything about everyone....several times. But that is what happens when you live with a bunch of people 24/7.

But that level of information is impossible to even simulate in a RPG. So I just go with the extreme: character's know nothing.

Though note I allow players to know anything they know for every character. So if you had five characters from Waterdeep before, you can use anything you know for character six from Waterdeep.

[Knaight]

Here is the part I don't like: you have to stop and derail the game almost every minute just so the DM can tell the players things their characters know.

Even if I were to interpret out of character clarifications as derailing the game (I don't), it's nowhere near every minute. It hasn't even worked out to every game session.

[jedipotter]

Even if I were to interpret out of character clarifications as derailing the game (I don't), it's nowhere near every minute. It hasn't even worked out to every game session.

Ok, but then how do you do it? Your doing it in the way that the character knows a ton of information, but the player knows none of it. And the only way for the player to know, is for the DM to tell them. Right?

So Character walks into the Red Tower. Player knows nothing about it, ''character does''. So the player turns to the DM and says ''what do I know about this place''. So cue the stopping of the game as the DM tells the player stuff. And all the follow up questions. And the endless questions. As they player knows nothing, they have to be told every little ''common'' detail.

And it does not matter if your rolling skill checks or not, it still takes time.

[kardar233]

A crew member of Schrodinger's Hummingbird would know a ton of stuff. The amount is so large that the player could never, ever know it all. If you were in the Navy on a ship(on anything smaller then an Aircraft Carrier) you get to know your crew mates very well. In just a couple of weeks, you will know everything about everyone....several times. But that is what happens when you live with a bunch of people 24/7.

But that level of information is impossible to even simulate in a RPG. So I just go with the extreme: character's know nothing.

My experience indicates that that level of information is possible to simulate in an RPG if it's broken down by player and DM into bite-sized chunks.

I've already used Caheira as an example, so I might as well continue with it. Caheira has spent the vast majority of her life in the city of Karond Kar, and so she knows quite a lot about the city itself.

When I want to know something about the city, I say to my DM "hey, what are the main political players of Karond Kar?" He thinks for a second and decides whether Caheira would know anything about that and to how much detail. Sometimes, he'll ask me questions like "How closely has Caheira been following politics?", and I'll reply "Not very closely, except where her family is concerned".

Then, I get a short info-dump on the topic: "Caheira knows that the city of Karond Kar is ruled by a three-man council, who represent the Beastmasters, the Corsairs and the Merchants; currently the Merchants are in ascendance. The major families of the city are Ravakah, Viksar, and Raneth, but Viksar has been weakened recently because your father won a major breeding contract from them. Your family is doing pretty well what with your brother's success at raiding and your father's skill at churning out Hydras, and there's been no sign of your mother recently allowing your father to run the house as he likes, which he's doing alright at."

This works really well in our games.

~EDIT~ Part of it is that we don't see these asides as disrupting the game; to us, they're an integral part of the game. To us, not telling a player information that their character would know in that scenario is tantamount to not telling a player that there's a door in front of the character. It's both irritating (because we don't know the surroundings unless they've been described), and spends time in a boring fashion when, say, the character walks forward and the DM says "you bump into the door!" and the player says "well, I open it then", or when the players end up spending lots of game time looking through libraries because the DM won't tell them the things their characters would know.

[Milo v3]

Here is the part I don't like: you have to stop and derail the game almost every minute just so the DM can tell the players things their characters know.
For my group telling them something their character would know so far comes up at most once per twenty minutes, and even then it's generally only one to three sentences.


Though note I allow players to know anything they know for every character. So if you had five characters from Waterdeep before, you can use anything you know for character six from Waterdeep.
Doesn't this just promote clone characters?


So Character walks into the Red Tower. Player knows nothing about it, ''character does''. So the player turns to the DM and says ''what do I know about this place''. So cue the stopping of the game as the DM tells the player stuff. And all the follow up questions. And the endless questions. As they player knows nothing, they have to be told every little ''common'' detail.
In my experience the questions are rather small in number, and they only ask for details that are relevant, which means that it wouldn't be derailing to the game at all.

[Knaight]

Ok, but then how do you do it? Your doing it in the way that the character knows a ton of information, but the player knows none of it. And the only way for the player to know, is for the DM to tell them. Right?

So Character walks into the Red Tower. Player knows nothing about it, ''character does''. So the player turns to the DM and says ''what do I know about this place''. So cue the stopping of the game as the DM tells the player stuff. And all the follow up questions. And the endless questions. As they player knows nothing, they have to be told every little ''common'' detail.

And it does not matter if your rolling skill checks or not, it still takes time.

It generally takes a negligible amount of time, and descriptions of things like the history of a place can often be woven into descriptions of the present. Then there's the matter of things the characters know that gets glossed over. For instance, Character needs to get to the Red Tower, and can see it from the edge of the city. Player says "I head off towards the red tower". The character actually needs to navigate their way through familiar streets to get there, which involves knowing a bunch of specific turns, distances, landmarks, etc. The GM can give a quick description of them heading over that way, taking into account their knowledge of the city layout, describing things seen on the way with references to the way they were before, so on and so forth. Every turn isn't going to be detailed, but the character clearly knows it and it comes across.

Or, for another example: I'm currently GMing a game where the PCs are members of a community on a small outpost of a jungle planet that are getting involved in the resistance against Galactic Fruit. A pivotal moment was when a Galactic Fruit ship touched down, unloading both a middle manager in charge of that planet, and a newly appointed mayor. I was then able to describe the mayor's claim as to who they were and what title they were claiming, while slipping in the detail "in blatant contravention of the Macondo* constitution" at the end of a bit of dialog from that character. So now the players know the obvious detail their characters all would. Whether they picked up on the subtler stuff (that also had some potential to elude the characters) is as yet unknown. This didn't distract from anything, it didn't detract from the game, it was as much a part of the scene as the look of the ship and the speaker.

*The planet.

[jedipotter]

Doesn't this just promote clone characters?


No, why would it? Player Eric has Sag the half orc knew halfling Penny who owns Penny's Flower Shop(and is a fence). Sag dies from a bite from a goldbug poison. So Eric makes Zipo the gnome. Now Zipo does not know Penny personality(the two characters have never met), but as Eric knows about her, she becomes one of the people in the city that Zipo has heard of in passing. But, of course, the information might not be 100% true or 100% up to date.

Players can build up quite large folders of ''things known''. This is a great way for a player to know a ton of stuff.

[Milo v3]

No, why would it? Player Eric has Sag the half orc knew halfling Penny who owns Penny's Flower Shop(and is a fence). Sag dies from a bite from a goldbug poison. So Eric makes Zipo the gnome. Now Zipo does not know Penny personality(the two characters have never met), but as Eric knows about her, she becomes one of the people in the city that Zipo has heard of in passing. But, of course, the information might not be 100% true or 100% up to date.

Players can build up quite large folders of ''things known''. This is a great way for a player to know a ton of stuff.

So basically to know the amount of things a character would know as an average player you have to die maybe thirty times as people who lived in close proximity?

[Earthwalker]

And it does not matter if your rolling skill checks or not, it still takes time.

Yes it takes time but you are doing it becuase the player wants the information. If the player didnt want the information you wouldnt do it.

In a system where character knowledge can be passed to the player it takes time.
In your system if the player wants the knowledge they will ask an NPC and guess what, IT WILL TAKE TIME.

So if your player wants the knowledge it takes time for them to get it. The only difference is the method of delivery. If the players do not want the knowledge, then time does not need to be taken.

[georgie_leech]

Yes it takes time but you are doing it becuase the player wants the information. If the player didnt want the information you wouldnt do it.

In a system where character knowledge can be passed to the player it takes time.
In your system if the player wants the knowledge they will ask an NPC and guess what, IT WILL TAKE TIME.

So if your player wants the knowledge it takes time for them to get it. The only difference is the method of delivery. If the players do not want the knowledge, then time does not need to be taken.

Actually, phrased like that...

JP, what is it that you think Players actually do? Is rolling Skill Checks (of which Knowledge Skills are a subset) to interact with the game world in some way not playing the game?

[Deadline]

No, why would it?

Because you mentioned the "sixth" character from Waterdeep. At some point, fatigue from constantly losing characters leads to clone characters, simply because it's quicker and easier to do so in order to get back to playing the game.

That said, you've stated you don't want to tell characters stuff about the world, and instead prefer to have "their characters know what they know". You claim this helps with immersion, but it looks to me like it will break immersion constantly after a player has played for a while. Suddenly every character they play knows all manner of bizarre details that they shouldn't know, and that breaks immersion way faster than asking a few clarifying questions.

How do you solve that issue? Do you suddenly start telling players that their character doesn't know certain things that the player knows? Or do you just not have players long enough for this to become an issue?

[Honest Tiefling]

Ok, but then how do you do it? Your doing it in the way that the character knows a ton of information, but the player knows none of it. And the only way for the player to know, is for the DM to tell them. Right?

So Character walks into the Red Tower. Player knows nothing about it, ''character does''. So the player turns to the DM and says ''what do I know about this place''. So cue the stopping of the game as the DM tells the player stuff. And all the follow up questions. And the endless questions. As they player knows nothing, they have to be told every little ''common'' detail.

And it does not matter if your rolling skill checks or not, it still takes time.

And? If I am playing an RPG, I probably want to know about the world. Why the heck am I here if I didn't want to know about the setting? Getting to know this tower is a party of the game. I want the DM to tell me something interesting, and maybe it'll spur a plot hook. Heck, the DM could tell me things from the view point of NPCs the party has encountered, either in the backstory or currently. Other players could even divulge the information. I probably don't want to RP if I cannot wait a few minutes for the DM to describe something. Then again, I'm the sort of player to bombard DMs with questions about their setting before play even starts.

The way you describe your games, my character starts off as a murderous semi-intelligent vegetable with sharp pointy objects. And then as I kill these vegetables off, my character slowly absorbs more knowledge from the deaths of the previous one. If that isn't immersion breaking, I don't know what is. You must be really good with description to keep that from making the game super-weird because for me, that'd just be so odd

[Svata]

Guys. I've got it figured out. PCs in her campaigns are the first few generations of aboleths. They're just not yet fishbominations yet, but they've got until the heat-death of the current universe and emergence of life in the subsequent, eerily similar one.

Things they have:
Alien Mindset
Hatred of lesser beings (NPCs)
Desire to remake the worldin their image
Generational Memory.

[Forrestfire]

That sounds like an awesome campaign premise :smallbiggrin:

[afroakuma]

That sounds like an awesome campaign premise :smallbiggrin:

I feel like I should run a Dawn of the Multiverse campaign now.

[jedipotter]

This works really well in our games.

Thanks for the example.

That example is exactly what I do not want to do in my game. I'm not a fan of the ''random knowing stuff'', and worse I hate the DM mouthpiece.


So basically to know the amount of things a character would know as an average player you have to die maybe thirty times as people who lived in close proximity?

Yes.



JP, what is it that you think Players actually do? Is rolling Skill Checks (of which Knowledge Skills are a subset) to interact with the game world in some way not playing the game?

It's not role-laying, so no. Yes it's ''playing D&D'', but they are bad rules. I don't like causal or lazy players that just expect to be ''told stuff'', even if they use the bad, broken, and wrong rule to roll a 30.

Instead of the couple of minutes of ''DM tells player things'', I would much rather do ''PC talks to NPC''.


Because you mentioned the "sixth" character from Waterdeep. At some point, fatigue from constantly losing characters leads to clone characters, simply because it's quicker and easier to do so in order to get back to playing the game.

Sure some players do Fred VII. But that is from high lethality, not player knowledge.


That said, you've stated you don't want to tell characters stuff about the world, and instead prefer to have "their characters know what they know". You claim this helps with immersion, but it looks to me like it will break immersion constantly after a player has played for a while. Suddenly every character they play knows all manner of bizarre details that they shouldn't know, and that breaks immersion way faster than asking a few clarifying questions.

How do you solve that issue? Do you suddenly start telling players that their character doesn't know certain things that the player knows? Or do you just not have players long enough for this to become an issue?

I've had some players for years and years and years. It never has been an issue. I would never tell a player ''they don't know something''. What the player knows, is what the character has heard. The idea is that they have heard stories about the other characters and things relating to them. But it's not hard fact, it is stories. And the current character is not part of them.

So Sally once had Vespa, merchant wizard in Waterdeep, and kept all her notes. Now Sally has Pula, a gnome cleric from Neverwinter that comes to Waterdeep. Now the character Pula does not know anyone off Sallys notes personally, but has herd of them. She has heard about the smuggler Jack that can be found at the Fish and Dish tavern. Sally can use that information and have Pula go to the tavern and ''look for the man Jack she has heard of''. Though the notes won't always be 100% accurate as they are only what Vespa knew/thought at the time. Plus time does march on...so things change.


And? If I am playing an RPG, I probably want to know about the world. Why the heck am I here if I didn't want to know about the setting?

I'd say you learn about the setting by role-playing.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd say you learn about the setting by role-playing.

How would this even be possible, if asking questions both IC and OoC are not permitted? Because if I ask an NPC for information, I'll probably be rolling skill checks anyway, which is the same mechanic as the Knowledge Skill check or a Gather Information skill check. So my character can be a complete and utter moron, but NPCs aren't allowed to be? That'll cause a huge disconnect, because Whose bright idea was it to give the stupidest person in the entire city anything remotely sharp? The characters are reduced to the intellectual level of small children.

[jedipotter]

How would this even be possible, if asking questions both IC and OoC are not permitted? Because if I ask an NPC for information, I'll probably be rolling skill checks anyway, which is the same mechanic as the Knowledge Skill check or a Gather Information skill check. So my character can be a complete and utter moron, but NPCs aren't allowed to be? That'll cause a huge disconnect, because Whose bright idea was it to give the stupidest person in the entire city anything remotely sharp? The characters are reduced to the intellectual level of small children.

Asking IC is always allowed....that is called role-playing!

And I do try to encourage ''lets role play'' over ''lets just sit here and roll dice''.

Say your a solo character looking for a bank robber:

The Roll Way:

Player :''My character walks around and talks to people **Roll** I got a 40 on my DM tell me stuff roll''
DM:"You learn that the back robber was seen at the Tightrope Tavern last night.''

Wow...exciting roll play.

The Role Play Way:

Player: "Zorn will go over to the Dark Dagger Tavern. I order a drink and put five gold coins on the bar and say to the bartender ''Heard about anything about the bank that was robbed?'' ""
DM: ''The bartender takes the gold ''I just tend my bar and know nothing''...but he quickly points to a man sitting in a back booth.''
Player: "Zorn nods. Zorn then walks towards the back.....

[OldTrees1]

Asking IC is always allowed....that is called role-playing!

And I do try to encourage ''lets role play'' over ''lets just sit here and roll dice''.

Say your a solo character looking for a bank robber:

The Roll Way:

Player :''My character walks around and talks to people **Roll** I got a 40 on my DM tell me stuff roll''
DM:"You learn that the back robber was seen at the Tightrope Tavern last night.''

Wow...exciting roll play.

The Role Play Way:

Player: "Zorn will go over to the Dark Dagger Tavern. I order a drink and put five gold coins on the bar and say to the bartender ''Heard about anything about the bank that was robbed?'' ""
DM: ''The bartender takes the gold ''I just tend my bar and know nothing''...but he quickly points to a man sitting in a back booth.''
Player: "Zorn nods. Zorn then walks towards the back.....

Please note that the Roleplay way requires the player to already know a lot more information than the Rollplay way does. While the Roleplay way is better, you need to do the DM's part and ensure the players have the information they need to be able to do the Roleplay way. When they lack the information to do the Roleplay way, players will be forced (by you the controller of info) to do the Rollplay way.

[Honest Tiefling]

But apparently saying 'My character, in agreement with you, has been established to be a well-versed traveller who has been to this region. I roll my knowledge local skill to see if I know of any shady taverns to start asking questions in'. Not even 'I turn to my companions and inform them that the tavern of the Dimwit is one where they should watch their coin purse in, but is also the only place I know of to begin' is also not role playing nor leading into such.

And I never implied for characters to subsitute rolls in the slightest, except when it would be information that the character would know because they're not a complete and utter idiot. So the situation would be more like:
Player: Well, gee, I need some information. I know of no inns. I know of no NPCs to ask...So what do I do?

Remember, these characters have little information on the region, even if it is the city they grew up in. As with the red tower example, you don't seem to like it when they ask questions. So I would imagine that players would get highly confused that they cannot ask simple questions regarding...Pretty important things (Like a TOWER), but can ask them of minor things (NPCs).

[jedipotter]

Please note that the Roleplay way requires the player to already know a lot more information than the Rollplay way does. While the Roleplay way is better, you need to do the DM's part and ensure the players have the information they need to be able to do the Roleplay way. When they lack the information to do the Roleplay way, players will be forced (by you the controller of info) to do the Rollplay way.

Why does role-play need more information?

[Honest Tiefling]

Please note that the Roleplay way requires the player to already know a lot more information than the Rollplay way does. While the Roleplay way is better, you need to do the DM's part and ensure the players have the information they need to be able to do the Roleplay way. When they lack the information to do the Roleplay way, players will be forced (by you the controller of info) to do the Rollplay way.

Ah, Oldtrees1. You have put it better then I ever could have.

But to answer the question without the roleplay, how do they even know this tavern exists? They barely know the dang bank exists!

[Deadline]

Why does role-play need more information?

How did Zorn know the Dark Dagger Tavern existed? How does he know where to find it? How does he know that the bartender might be the type to sell information? etc. These are the sorts of things that a skill check can help with. You, of course, seem to think that people who might roll a skill check expect to never have the roleplay experience that Zorn is doing, but that isn't the case at all. Those checks give a starting point for roleplay so you don't waste everyone's time by wandering around town asking random townsfolk (who you apparently don't know, despite your growing up there and living there all your life) for information that might, just might, be relevant to whatever task you set yourself to.

[OldTrees1]

Why does role-play need more information?

Quick answer: Because role-play relies on the player knowing everything relevant that the character would know that the player did not.

The Rollplay option only needed to know that they were at a place with people (didn't even need to know it was a town rather than a prison block or even that a bank was robbed).

The Roleplay option needed to know that there was the Dark Dagger Tavern, that it was a place to get information, the protocol for getting information at the Dark Dagger Tavern, and that a bank was robbed.

In essence:
The Rollplay option lets you the DM rely on the Players relying on you for their Character's knowledge.
The Roleplay option has the Players rely on themselves for their Character knowledge. Most of that knowledge starts in the DM's head and needs some way of reaching the Player's head before the option becomes available.

[Flickerdart]

The Role Play Way:

Player: "Zorn will go over to the Dark Dagger Tavern. I order a drink and put five gold coins on the bar and say to the bartender ''Heard about anything about the bank that was robbed?'' ""
DM: ''The bartender takes the gold ''I just tend my bar and know nothing''...but he quickly points to a man sitting in a back booth.''
Player: "Zorn nods. Zorn then walks towards the back.....
I guess every bartender in your world just folds over for strangers? Because if some guy came around asking for leads on a robbery, a few gold coins would not convince me to help them. That's the whole point of skill checks - they're used to adjudicate this sort of thing.

But if you like to run an easy sort of game where the DM coddles the players like that, that's okay too I guess.

[Knaight]

It's not role-laying, so no. Yes it's ''playing D&D'', but they are bad rules. I don't like causal or lazy players that just expect to be ''told stuff'', even if they use the bad, broken, and wrong rule to roll a 30.

Instead of the couple of minutes of ''DM tells player things'', I would much rather do ''PC talks to NPC''.

...

I'd say you learn about the setting by role-playing.

So say some PC walks into a building, and there's nobody in there. Do they still see the building? Do they still get the information around them? Or does that somehow not count as it's not in-character dialog and not roleplaying, and if they want to see the building they're in they have to find someone to describe it?

[Honest Tiefling]

Party kidnaps gnome and forces them at sword point to describe the world to them.

[kardar233]

Party Ruler of barbarian horde kidnaps gnome boy and forces them at sword point to describe the world to them.

I think I've been watching this, actually...

[Honest Tiefling]

I think I've been watching this, actually...

I think you need to provide a link, good sir and/or madam.

[kardar233]

I think you need to provide a link, good sir and/or madam.

I was referring to the Netflix series Marco Polo.

[jedipotter]

I guess every bartender in your world just folds over for strangers? Because if some guy came around asking for leads on a robbery, a few gold coins would not convince me to help them. That's the whole point of skill checks - they're used to adjudicate this sort of thing.

But if you like to run an easy sort of game where the DM coddles the players like that, that's okay too I guess.

My way is the hard way. The players must think and reason and decide. They get no ''dice help''


So say some PC walks into a building, and there's nobody in there. Do they still see the building? Do they still get the information around them? Or does that somehow not count as it's not in-character dialog and not roleplaying, and if they want to see the building they're in they have to find someone to describe it?

The Cake is a Lie!

[afroakuma]

{scrubbed}

[Milo v3]

My way is the hard way. The players must think and reason and decide. They get no ''dice help''
Why are you playing a game with dice then rather than freeform?


The Cake is a Lie!
... are we entirely sure jedipotter hasn't just been trolling the entire time. :smallsigh:

[Honest Tiefling]

... are we entirely sure jedipotter hasn't just been trolling the entire time. :smallsigh:

Honestly? Not really. I think it is good to consider his viewpoints, even if I would probably not use most of his stated tactics or rules. Why? It helps me form what I wish to do in my own games and how I would feel about certain things. What to avoid doing to get the results I want.

Through I'm still amused by a village terrorized by a door but too lazy to do anything with it.

[Vhaidara]

... are we entirely sure jedipotter hasn't just been trolling the entire time. :smallsigh:

We figured out that he was when he dodged valid points by
1. Commenting that "he" was not the right pronoun (and also denying every pronoun presented)
2. Doctor Who references
3. Ignoring them
4. Portal references (the most recent, of course)
5. Denying them in spite of evidence (See: I always make the existence of my houserules public, to which I posted one of his big 16s from the PbP section that made no mention of houserules beyond 2 or 3 specifically mentioned)
6. Trying to remove non-deity clerics from Eberron (this is more of a personal one)

[Honest Tiefling]

6. Trying to remove non-deity clerics from Eberron (this is more of a personal one)

Wait, what do you mean by this?

[Vhaidara]

Wait, what do you mean by this?

One of his houserules is that Clerics must have a deity. One of Eberron's big things is that most Clerics don't have deities. I am in a PbP set in Eberron that JP was originally going to GM (I scared him of by being competent), and his 16 included the removal of godless clerics from the setting.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why does role-play need more information?
For the same reason that method acting makes for a better performance than staring blankly ahead and reciting your lines in a monotone. For the same reason that a well-researched paper is better than one made up off the top of my head. The more I know about the world, the more real it feels to me. The more real the world feels, the easier it is to get engaged. The more engaged I am, the easier it is to put myself into the character. The more I put myself into character, the better I'll role-play.


On a related note... you don't like knowledge skills because they're metagamey, correct? Rolling a die instead of figuring things out in the world? How is it less metagamey to use knowledge possessed by an unrelated character? Using player knowledge in place of character knowledge is the textbook definition of metagaming, and yet you're holding it up as the One True way to game?

[Flickerdart]

My way is the hard way. The players must think and reason and decide. They get no ''dice help''
The dice don't help. The dice hinder. The dice say, "no, the bartender is not convinced by your pathetic bribe." If you remove the dice, you surrender to anything the players do. You say "okay, you said that you would do the thing, and the thing happens, just like if you were the hero of a TV show." I don't like this kind of easy mode of playing, personally.

[jedipotter]

As is, nothing you've ever said about "your way" suggests that it's better, superior, more challenging, more involving, more true to the spirit of the game, more engaging to those who play with you, or even really any fun.

I never said my game was any of those things? Except fun.

Everyone is different, some people like the ''stuff'' in the Tome of Battle and love using them. I don't in my game, but don't care if someone else is ''using a spell maneuver, or whatever''.


Why are you playing a game with dice then rather than freeform?

I'm not a fan of free form, I like rules.



are we entirely sure jedipotter hasn't just been trolling the entire time. :smallsigh:

I got the answer to my question.




Through I'm still amused by a village terrorized by a door but too lazy to do anything with it.

Everything can't automatically be taken care of and solved seconds after it happens. That makes for a boring world. It's like saying ''the Death Eaters kill Baby Harry'', yea that would make a great story as then all the Harry Potter books would not exist. Or even ''Yoda kills Anikin in episode one'', wow that would have made for five more great movies. Or, the best one, ''the stupid ring-wraith just looks down kills Frodo and takes the ring as they don't hide under the tree'' or even ''the ring-wraith just kills Aragon with his flaming stick, and then kills Frodo and takes the ring.


I am in a PbP set in Eberron that JP was originally going to GM

I would never, ever run a game set in Eberron....I very much dislike the setting


For the same reason that method acting makes for a better performance than staring blankly ahead and reciting your lines in a monotone. For the same reason that a well-researched paper is better than one made up off the top of my head. The more I know about the world, the more real it feels to me. The more real the world feels, the easier it is to get engaged. The more engaged I am, the easier it is to put myself into the character. The more I put myself into character, the better I'll role-play.

Right.

So DM X either just tells the player stuff, or has them roll a skill check and tells them stuff. And then the player does all the stuff you mentioned. In my game, the player and DM role play out learning the stuff, and then And then the player does all the stuff you mentioned.



On a related note... you don't like knowledge skills because they're metagamey, correct? Rolling a die instead of figuring things out in the world? How is it less metagamey to use knowledge possessed by an unrelated character? Using player knowledge in place of character knowledge is the textbook definition of metagaming, and yet you're holding it up as the One True way to game?

My problems with the knowledge skill can, and have, filled threads.

Yes, a player in my game is free to use any knowledge they know. Once upon a time a ran a game set in Cromyr where all the characters were War Wizards. I recommended that the players read the books Cromyr, Death of the Dragon and Stormlight. The ones that read the books are free to use any information from the books in the game.

[afroakuma]

I got the answer to my question.

No you didn't, you just made one up. If you're so satisfied, why are you still debating? Clearly you want something more than what you say you "got." What might that be, perchance?

[Grod_The_Giant]

So DM X either just tells the player stuff, or has them roll a skill check and tells them stuff. And then the player does all the stuff you mentioned. In my game, the player and DM role play out learning the stuff, and then And then the player does all the stuff you mentioned.
So we start as kids and role-play through our entire lives? Because that's the only way to learn everything through role-play alone. Characters have done things before the game starts; that's the point of having a backstory. Why are you so against them being able to draw on the knowledge-- not power, just knowledge-- from that? Why are you so opposed to in-character knowledge? And don't say time; you'll spend far more time ****ing around if players have to find an NPC to converse with every time they want to know where the market district is or who's in charge of the city.

[Milo v3]

I'm not a fan of free form, I like rules.
If you like rules, why won't you let the players use them to gain information then? :smallconfused:


I got the answer to my question.
.... So what? That wouldn't give you any reason or right to troll people.


Everything can't automatically be taken care of and solved seconds after it happens. That makes for a boring world. It's like saying ''the Death Eaters kill Baby Harry'', yea that would make a great story as then all the Harry Potter books would not exist. Or even ''Yoda kills Anikin in episode one'', wow that would have made for five more great movies. Or, the best one, ''the stupid ring-wraith just looks down kills Frodo and takes the ring as they don't hide under the tree'' or even ''the ring-wraith just kills Aragon with his flaming stick, and then kills Frodo and takes the ring.
Those examples are irrelevant and have nothing to do with what you quoted.

[afroakuma]

It's times like these that I really wish we had sage here. Anyway, let's none of us continue to encourage that one. If it feels like it accomplished something then it might go away.

[jedipotter]

So we start as kids and role-play through our entire lives?

Yes, that sounds good.


If you like rules, why won't you let the players use them to gain information then? :smallconfused:

Well, I like rules, but I'm not the kind of person who just blindly follow what someone scribbled down on page 42 years ago. I modify their rules and make my own.



Those examples are irrelevant and have nothing to do with what you quoted.

Ok, it was said that ''as soon as something happens. everyone would deal with it''. So, everyone in the whole town would not rest until they did something about that animated door. I said, that makes for a boring world. You can't just ''auto do things'', and gave some movie examples. It would be like the adventurer characters walking into town and being told ''oh there is nothing to do anywhere in the kingdom, we did it all ready.''

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't. It was said in the first post that character ''should just be able to tell'' somehow about a town from just walking around and looking. I say that only works for rich and poor, plus it does not take into account race and culture.



Ok, but describe it. Not rich or poor..again as has been said that is easy. Describe three ''middle spots'' and what visual clues do you use to say ''this place has more money then that place?"





I think you might be conflating a relativistic description with a poor description or no description at all. It's tough to convey precisely what I'm talking about but...

Ooh, I know. Let's talk about gobbers.
So in Iron Kingdoms, you have a race called gobbers (visually? they are goblins).

If I were to describe a settlement to you...
The town you enter is full of tall brick buildings, connected by iron catwalks. Dirt and grime cover the roads, and a number of foul odors mixed with the acrid smell of smoke fill your nostrils. A group of children dressed in rags run across your path as you make your way down the main dirt road with several market stalls lining either side. The market is a bustle of activity, with gobber vendors trading scrap metal, livestock, animal hides, and bottles filled with multi-colored liquid with equal aplomb. A very excited vendor approaches you, eyeing your equipment, and asks if there's anything you'd be willing to trade.

Now how rich or poor does that town sound to you?


The answer: To us? Seems relatively thrown back and poor. They are bartering, rather than using any established currency. There aren't too many finished goods available, and most of what is in your line of sight is junk.

For a gobber community? It is exceedingly wealthy, and the height of commerce.
Gobbers are artisans by nature. They tend to value raw materials more than most finished goods.
In addition, they place a great value on stories and history. Objects that have a history are more intrinsically valuable to them. There was a scene in one Iron Kingdoms novel where a group of gobbers were playing cards with a human. All he had left to offer as stakes was an old, beat up shovel. It was about three more jobs from falling apart, but it saved his life once because he used it to dig himself out of a cave-in. The gobbers folded, because they had nothing to offer that was nearly as valuable as that shovel.

So now we are combining a very thorough description with a relativistic approach.
Mechanically, in an actual game, you would just let things fall where they may. A gobber party member would easily recognize the place for what it actually is. But if you had party members who had knowledge of gobbers, I think you would be obligated to tell them that this place was a pretty bustling center of commerce, and there was a pretty good shot they could find nearly anything they wanted here.

[Lady Serpentine]

The kobolds may be 'poor' from a strictly economical point of view, but certainly not destitute. It's like a tribe- they may not have a lot of money, but they don't suffer a lot from lack of food/etc either. There's more between 'poor' and 'rich'.

Edit: Poor Orc Ville may be like what I described actually o-o Just that it appears more bleak due to the words used - ugly, deflated, dirty. Change the words, change the tone.

Let's see if someone can describe a 'rich' place such that it's also 'bleak', like some sort of dystopia.

On the edge of the ocean, under the Crow's Eye, sits a long finger of rock; the edges crumble, but tendrils of violet magic are woven through it, holding it up. From a distance, the whole thing pulses with an eerie black light... But none of this is the most important feature of this strange place, though it's certainly worth note in its own right.

That honor goes to the home of the one who calls herself the Nightmare Dancer. It sits at the end of that odd stretch of rock, a seemingly-smooth column of jet rising nearly a mile into the air. And, as you get closer, you can see that the same tendrils of magic that hold the rock together are also wrapped around six massive spikes, each one made from thousands of bones, covered in a thin film of salt and polished by the sea and the wind, which sprout from its base and have rooted themselves in the rock shelf it sits on.

Eventually, however, as you make your final approach, it becomes clear the surface is not nearly as smooth as it first appears: The walls are covered in intricate grooves and a sinuous pattern of carved scales to make it seem like a coiled serpent - and each man-sized scale is polished to a mirror sheen, with shades just on the edge of vision seeming to flit just beneath the surface out of the corner of one's eyes.

A swirling vortex of storm clouds, hundreds of miles across, that blocks the sun (as well as the moon and stars, all of which severely hampers navigation) across most of the Alvandrian Ocean, and has done so for at least the past decade. It is so named for its similar in shape to the eye of a massive bird, and the dark color of most of the clouds in it.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Closed for Review.