Hermit ignoring discovery

[Cakeking]

I just started a campaign recently and i wanted there to be a huge over arching mystery that the players would uncover as the campaign went on. One of the players chose the hermit background so i figured why not give them a big piece of the puzzle, so i did, but they are just ignoring it completely.

The mystery can still be solved, just in a different way. I just don't know if i should tell him "you're missing clues" or say "hey, i just want to make sure you remember all that info i gave you as part of your background" or say nothing until one day it clicks for him.

As the DM i don't care either way if he picks up on the clues, the campaign will go on just fine and fun will be had, but i don't know if this is the type of thing i would need to say something to him about.

[Spectre9000]

Sounds like the root of your problem is you want a non-RPing player to RP, as if he/she was into RP he/she would be paying very close attention to their backstory. I'd let it play out, and in the future if it ever clicks for the player, that player will pay closer attention from then on hopefully, and perhaps RP more.

[Cakeking]

when you say it that way, it really makes sense...thank you sir

[MaxWilson]

At minimum I would make sure he has his backstory clues in written form. You might consider giving the party other important clues in written form too. Designing a mystery in D&D is a whole art unto itself and sometimes physical artifacts like handouts and pictures can be useful.

[Gastronomie]

How about making an NPC that in some way makes the PCs remember that particular "discovery"? Should work fine without making it seem like it's railroading.

[Flashy]

I had a player who took the hermit background, and then played the character as operating under a vow of silence. Never revealed the secret to the rest of the party.

Basically, these things happen.

[Cakeking]

it is in written form and a couple times now things happened and the pc's all said "this is weird, it doesnt make sense" and i know that the hermit would know if he read the discovery i gave him, watched him read, and had him so "okay i got it"

like i said, this isn't really a problem so much as a issue i wonder if i should step in as the DM and remind him of. Like it was said before though, if he doesnt wanna RP im not gonna make him, and the campaign will be fine without him pointing things out...and im sure the players will give him crap when they find out he knew the whole time, which will be funny

[brainface]

Clues that seem obvious to the creator of a mystery are often incomprehensible to their intended target. I'd ham it up till the player got it--prophetic dreams, visions, dire omens, whatever their particular secret calls for.

[RickAllison]

Clues that seem obvious to the creator of a mystery are often incomprehensible to their intended target. I'd ham it up till the player got it--prophetic dreams, visions, dire omens, whatever their particular secret calls for.

When in doubt, make the party ingest a series of wild hallucinogens. Shove whatever information you would like upon them in their drug-induced euphoria and watch them try and piece it all together! If they fail, sic faerie dragons on them and spray until they finally figure it out ;)

[MaxWilson]

it is in written form and a couple times now things happened and the pc's all said "this is weird, it doesnt make sense" and i know that the hermit would know if he read the discovery i gave him, watched him read, and had him so "okay i got it"

like i said, this isn't really a problem so much as a issue i wonder if i should step in as the DM and remind him of. Like it was said before though, if he doesnt wanna RP im not gonna make him, and the campaign will be fine without him pointing things out...and im sure the players will give him crap when they find out he knew the whole time, which will be funny

Okay, so it sounds like he wants to use his discoveries, he's just a little bit... non-proactive about it.

There have been times when I thought my players might need a little reminder of something they know, and in those cases I have them roll Int checks (DC 10ish), and if they pass I inform them of the thing that they already know.

[pribnow]

The way you tell it, I get the feeling that the campaign would be more fun for both the player and the DM if he remembers his discovery well. So I would remind him.

[Once a Fool]

If you've got the discovery set up as an Easter egg, then let it play out that way. Your player isn't going to get any satisfaction from having it bludgeoned over his head. Be subtle and patient. One day, maybe, the accumulation of clues will click. Or they won't.

But, the reason you, as a DM, create layers in your world is so that the world has depth that the players can experience or ignore, per their preferences. Shoving it in their faces makes the world feel less real and satisfying, not more.

[Segev]

Have him roll an Intelligence check the next time the party runs into an "oh, that doesn't make sense" situation which could be explained by his discovery. Or don't check, and just tell him. But point out the connection to him between his discovery and this "weird thing." He may not see it, OOC.

[Typewriter]

My old group never used to share information with one another. It was so bad that I, in one campaign, gave them all the same 'birthmark'. We talked over backstories (which were very minimal because nobody really wrote much and left most of it to me). At the end of the conversation with each of them I said, "Oh yeah, and one more thing - everyone in the campaign is getting something small and special that will be relevant later - you have a birthmark of the sun with 6 small circles around it."

More than half the campaign went by without them revealing this information to one another. I'd introduced an NPC who had that symbol as their own and everything - and the whole party was interested in him but trying to be subtle about why they were interested in him.

And, just to clear on thing up, this was a group that was interested in story and setting. I wasn't forcing RP on them when all they wanted was hack and slash. Well, maybe one of them was primarily interested in hack and slash but the rest definitely weren't. They were just fairly unmotivated.

[Segev]

My old group never used to share information with one another. It was so bad that I, in one campaign, gave them all the same 'birthmark'. We talked over backstories (which were very minimal because nobody really wrote much and left most of it to me). At the end of the conversation with each of them I said, "Oh yeah, and one more thing - everyone in the campaign is getting something small and special that will be relevant later - you have a birthmark of the sun with 6 small circles around it."

More than half the campaign went by without them revealing this information to one another. I'd introduced an NPC who had that symbol as their own and everything - and the whole party was interested in him but trying to be subtle about why they were interested in him.

And, just to clear on thing up, this was a group that was interested in story and setting. I wasn't forcing RP on them when all they wanted was hack and slash. Well, maybe one of them was primarily interested in hack and slash but the rest definitely weren't. They were just fairly unmotivated.

I think what I've bolded may have had something more to do with it. They thought, for whatever reason, that their birthmark was a unique secret that would be part of a big reveal later, and that they shouldn't reveal it in front of the "uninitiated," even if they didn't know what the "initiation" was for.

The very first Exalted game I played in was unintentionally hillarious as we each thought that keeping our Solar nature a secret was crucial to avoid being murdered, so we didn't want to reveal it to each other. And this was when we HAD the OOC knowledge that the others were also Solars, but couldn't figure out how to reveal it IC. None of our characters had reason to trust the others with that secret for several sessions! (When one of us finally anima flared, the others revealed shortly thereafter, because it became clear nobody was turning on the one who was revealed.)

[Typewriter]

I think what I've bolded may have had something more to do with it. They thought, for whatever reason, that their birthmark was a unique secret that would be part of a big reveal later, and that they shouldn't reveal it in front of the "uninitiated," even if they didn't know what the "initiation" was for.

The very first Exalted game I played in was unintentionally hillarious as we each thought that keeping our Solar nature a secret was crucial to avoid being murdered, so we didn't want to reveal it to each other. And this was when we HAD the OOC knowledge that the others were also Solars, but couldn't figure out how to reveal it IC. None of our characters had reason to trust the others with that secret for several sessions! (When one of us finally anima flared, the others revealed shortly thereafter, because it became clear nobody was turning on the one who was revealed.)

That makes sense - and it sounds like you guys were working together to make it interesting while also keeping ic and ooc knowledge separate. I will admit that the birthmark thing was a bit of a joke for me. I knew they would keep it secret from one another because of how frustrating they could be with sharing information amongst each other. If someone joined the group and shared some private details of their life the rest of the party would barely acknowledge it and would offer nothing back.

Example:
New PC: Wow guys, thanks for rescuing me from those orcs! I owe you my life, and we seem to be heading the same direction, may I assist you with anything?
Existing PC: Yes
NP: Cool. My name is La'fein. I was banished from the elven homeland after I was framed for destroying a sacred relic. I seek the man who framed me, a blue haired Halfling.
EP: OK. We're going to this dungeon to kill some bandits.
NP: ...
EP: ...
DM: So... you guys don't mention that the leader of the bandits is a blue haired Halfling?
EP: No, I don't trust him
DM: Ok, well you guys have a week of journey ahead of you. Do you share any information about yourselves or your adventure?
EP: I fill him in on the basics. Bandits attacked the town, we were hired by the mayor to kill them.
DM: So, you don't explain the fact that the bandits had a cleric dedicated to a good god and seemed like they're actively trying to do something good? That the mayor was acting shady and that a spirit warned you not to trust him?
EP: ...
NP: ...
DM: Ok, a few days have passed and you guys are getting close to the bandit territory. You encounter a lone bandit who confronts you, asking who you all are.
NP: "We're here to defeat you bandits. I am La'Fein, and my companions are"... uh, I can't remember your guys names
EP: We never gave you our names, and don't threaten the guy - we may be allies.
NP: Do you tell me any of that in character?
EP: No, I say, "Calm down, no need for rash action"
DM: The bandit puts his hand on his weapon
NP: I attack the bandit

It was a recurring theme with the group - they never shared information. Didn't matter if it was something like a birth mark or a villains end game plans or anything in between. Almost every single one of them loved building characters who were hermits or homeless or something along those lines - someone private who didn't care for adventuring with others. It eventually got so bad that my only rule at character creation was, "I don't care how you play your character as long as he can play well with others. If your character is dead-set on ignoring the rest of the party and doing his own thing then he will become an NPC and you can create a new character that's interested in having allies."

One campaign began with the players locked up together. One of them found a note during their escape that mentioned why the adventurers had all been kidnapped - it implied they were connected in some way. That PC took the note, fled, separated from the party, then went off on his own. Without knowing they were connected the rest of the PCs had no reason to stick together and disbanded. (NOTE: "You all already know each other and are friends/colleagues" was a backstory explanation for why they were together that they didn't really care for).

Another campaign began with 2 players having backstories that consisted of living in the woods near the starting town because they didn't like others, 1 being homeless in the town being distrusting, and the last one being 'normal'.

Another campaign - the party kept finding corpses everywhere being sold and shipped across the world. Eventually the party discovered they were all going to this evil empire that was using them (and an artifact) to make a massive army of the undead. They weren't too concerned about it when they found it as the place was fairly isolated and they met some of the 'local leadership' which convinced them that it was purely defensive posturing. Later in the campaign one of the players found a hidden teleportation circle in a city that led to the undead kingdom - along with about 30 or 40 more teleportation circles leading to hidden locations all around the world. The PC pieced together that the villain was planning a full-scale surprise invasion. He left, joined back up with the party, and they continued on their way with him never sharing a word about it.

NOTE: I'm making my players sound worse than they were. I have a new group after having DMed my old group for about ~10 years and I quickly realized how much of a rut my old group had gotten into. The old group wasn't bad, but we got into really bad habits (myself included).

[gfishfunk]

If any of that crap occurred in my campaign, everyone would form the horrible habit of talking in their sleep.

If that didn't work, we would get together, and I would lead the party to an isolated area. Then I would narrate the rest of their cold, empty lives as they waste away in the wilderness, until an unstoppable army of undead killed them all in their sleep.

[Segev]

Players not sharing information seems a common problem. It's amazing how often the GM has given one player some piece of information in private and then lamented later how he never SHARED it with the party. For whatever reason, players seem to be very good at convincing themselves that whatever information they get should not be shared. Or that it's not the right time, or...something.

I hope I tend to share information and look for excuses to do so, but I don't know if I'm guilty of this more often than not, myself. I imagine players must tend not to be aware they're doing it, or they'd act more to correct it.

[Once a Fool]

That makes sense - and it sounds like you guys were working together to make it interesting while also keeping ic and ooc knowledge separate. I will admit that the birthmark thing was a bit of a joke for me. I knew they would keep it secret from one another because of how frustrating they could be with sharing information amongst each other. If someone joined the group and shared some private details of their life the rest of the party would barely acknowledge it and would offer nothing back.

Example:
New PC: Wow guys, thanks for rescuing me from those orcs! I owe you my life, and we seem to be heading the same direction, may I assist you with anything?
Existing PC: Yes
NP: Cool. My name is La'fein. I was banished from the elven homeland after I was framed for destroying a sacred relic. I seek the man who framed me, a blue haired Halfling.
EP: OK. We're going to this dungeon to kill some bandits.
NP: ...
EP: ...
DM: So... you guys don't mention that the leader of the bandits is a blue haired Halfling?
EP: No, I don't trust him
DM: Ok, well you guys have a week of journey ahead of you. Do you share any information about yourselves or your adventure?
EP: I fill him in on the basics. Bandits attacked the town, we were hired by the mayor to kill them.
DM: So, you don't explain the fact that the bandits had a cleric dedicated to a good god and seemed like they're actively trying to do something good? That the mayor was acting shady and that a spirit warned you not to trust him?
EP: ...
NP: ...
DM: Ok, a few days have passed and you guys are getting close to the bandit territory. You encounter a lone bandit who confronts you, asking who you all are.
NP: "We're here to defeat you bandits. I am La'Fein, and my companions are"... uh, I can't remember your guys names
EP: We never gave you our names, and don't threaten the guy - we may be allies.
NP: Do you tell me any of that in character?
EP: No, I say, "Calm down, no need for rash action"
DM: The bandit puts his hand on his weapon
NP: I attack the bandit

It was a recurring theme with the group - they never shared information. Didn't matter if it was something like a birth mark or a villains end game plans or anything in between. Almost every single one of them loved building characters who were hermits or homeless or something along those lines - someone private who didn't care for adventuring with others. It eventually got so bad that my only rule at character creation was, "I don't care how you play your character as long as he can play well with others. If your character is dead-set on ignoring the rest of the party and doing his own thing then he will become an NPC and you can create a new character that's interested in having allies."

One campaign began with the players locked up together. One of them found a note during their escape that mentioned why the adventurers had all been kidnapped - it implied they were connected in some way. That PC took the note, fled, separated from the party, then went off on his own. Without knowing they were connected the rest of the PCs had no reason to stick together and disbanded. (NOTE: "You all already know each other and are friends/colleagues" was a backstory explanation for why they were together that they didn't really care for).

Another campaign began with 2 players having backstories that consisted of living in the woods near the starting town because they didn't like others, 1 being homeless in the town being distrusting, and the last one being 'normal'.

Another campaign - the party kept finding corpses everywhere being sold and shipped across the world. Eventually the party discovered they were all going to this evil empire that was using them (and an artifact) to make a massive army of the undead. They weren't too concerned about it when they found it as the place was fairly isolated and they met some of the 'local leadership' which convinced them that it was purely defensive posturing. Later in the campaign one of the players found a hidden teleportation circle in a city that led to the undead kingdom - along with about 30 or 40 more teleportation circles leading to hidden locations all around the world. The PC pieced together that the villain was planning a full-scale surprise invasion. He left, joined back up with the party, and they continued on their way with him never sharing a word about it.

NOTE: I'm making my players sound worse than they were. I have a new group after having DMed my old group for about ~10 years and I quickly realized how much of a rut my old group had gotten into. The old group wasn't bad, but we got into really bad habits (myself included).

Sounds like your group really would have enjoyed playing Paranoia.

[Typewriter]

If any of that crap occurred in my campaign, everyone would form the horrible habit of talking in their sleep.

If that didn't work, we would get together, and I would lead the party to an isolated area. Then I would narrate the rest of their cold, empty lives as they waste away in the wilderness, until an unstoppable army of undead killed them all in their sleep.

The campaign with the undead army resolved without it ever being addressed - they finished the current quest line and then disbanded. The next campaign started ~30 years later with most of the world conquered by the army and the new PCs being in the resistance. I believe in the PCs doing what they want, ignoring plot hooks, refusing to save the world, breaking doors instead of solving puzzles, etc. etc. - but some of that stuff leads to consequences.


Players not sharing information seems a common problem. It's amazing how often the GM has given one player some piece of information in private and then lamented later how he never SHARED it with the party. For whatever reason, players seem to be very good at convincing themselves that whatever information they get should not be shared. Or that it's not the right time, or...something.

I hope I tend to share information and look for excuses to do so, but I don't know if I'm guilty of this more often than not, myself. I imagine players must tend not to be aware they're doing it, or they'd act more to correct it.

I eventually stopped doing 'private' conversations with players. Everything happened at the table in front of everyone. It only helped somewhat - some of the stuff I mentioned the other players knew OOC and tried OOT to convince the other PC to share, but for some reason (usually a good, IC one) they wouldn't. Like the undead army thing - that player had played his character with a very narrow focus. He didn't care about stuff outside his scope. The undead weren't specifically targeting him so he didn't care about them and didn't feel the need to warn anyone.

[Segev]

I eventually stopped doing 'private' conversations with players. Everything happened at the table in front of everyone. It only helped somewhat - some of the stuff I mentioned the other players knew OOC and tried OOT to convince the other PC to share, but for some reason (usually a good, IC one) they wouldn't. Like the undead army thing - that player had played his character with a very narrow focus. He didn't care about stuff outside his scope. The undead weren't specifically targeting him so he didn't care about them and didn't feel the need to warn anyone.

20/20 hindsight suggestion, but if something like that comes up again, maybe an NPC could be used to prompt in a way the PC will respond. For example, a war hawk politician offering money for any evidence of nefarious deeds by the undead-using kingdom. He can't get support right now for his opposition to the trade deals and peace treaties he wants to put into place, so he's eager to get evidence they're "up to something" that others would believe.

Now the "in it for myself" PC can get money or connections or whatever you want to arrange as incentive for sharing that info.

[gfishfunk]

The campaign with the undead army resolved without it ever being addressed - they finished the current quest line and then disbanded. The next campaign started ~30 years later with most of the world conquered by the army and the new PCs being in the resistance. I believe in the PCs doing what they want, ignoring plot hooks, refusing to save the world, breaking doors instead of solving puzzles, etc. etc. - but some of that stuff leads to consequences.

That is fair. From your original post, I thought they were outright ignoring plot and just playing it as a total hack and slash. "Is there something for me to kill right now? No? Then I'm zoning out."

[Typewriter]

20/20 hindsight suggestion, but if something like that comes up again, maybe an NPC could be used to prompt in a way the PC will respond. For example, a war hawk politician offering money for any evidence of nefarious deeds by the undead-using kingdom. He can't get support right now for his opposition to the trade deals and peace treaties he wants to put into place, so he's eager to get evidence they're "up to something" that others would believe.

Now the "in it for myself" PC can get money or connections or whatever you want to arrange as incentive for sharing that info.

I had planned on trying to bring it back into focus at some point. Then we transitioned to fourth edition (as it came out) and everybody felt it was a flop. Then they finished their current quest and just sort of decided to disband the party and call the game. It was a mess.


That is fair. From your original post, I thought they were outright ignoring plot and just playing it as a total hack and slash. "Is there something for me to kill right now? No? Then I'm zoning out."

They were an odd group - they didn't like hack and slash but they weren't motivated to make their own stories. Every campaign was designed as a semi-sandbox so they could make their own paths and do what they wanted, but with a main plot that adapted to their actions a bit. Then they would just sit around waiting for plot points to come to them. They investigated and researched, they role-played the minimum, they enjoyed their victories. But that was it. I always asked people if they wanted to do anything specific in the campaign - fight a dragon, get a castle, kill a king - whatever. Sometimes I'd get answers and the requests almost always got answered. But sometimes the players wouldn't even pursue their own dreams. Guy wanted to start a religious cult, but never bothered to recruit people or build a temple. We talked about it at one point after a session where he could have persuaded some NPCs into worshipping whatever he wanted them to but he just said, 'Yeah, I knew I could have gotten those people, but, eh...."

I made a post on reddit about it recently and I think the problem was largely complacency. They trusted me too much - they knew that the game would be fun so they didn't bother to forge their own unique paths. We all got into bad habits with this and got used to each other.