building DM trust without having to spoil the game

[Yerok LliGcam]

HELP!!!


so i'm writing this post to hopefully get some peoples insight that have either been involved, or ran a game that had something like this going on, but i appreciate all points of view.
this is all in 5e for reference but really the issue is system agnostic i feel. i also play 7D games, and whitewolf.

here's the situation:

my players got themselves into so many plots they were running around going "WHY IS THIS HAPPENING!?!" to the point that during a game where only 2 showed up they spent the whole time just talking to me about how the game needed to change to be fun again and that i was being unrealistic/unfair/the game wasn't fun anymore. (these weren't new players either, one guy had been playing since 2nd edition and runs 2 other campaigns our group is in, and the other is a somewhat new DM of maybe a year? whereas myself i've been a DM of games consistently for about 2 years now.)


i like to play a realistic game, but hope to have it be fun still. i'm okay bending the rules of both the game system i'm using and the rules of reality to accomodate to a point. i run a game where monsters will think tactically if they have intelligence and will pose a real threat regardless of their "level" however that's calculated. and so i like adventuring to be just that. an adventure, full of danger etc.

so how can i maintain that realism, whilst making sure to avoid situations where the ramifications of players actions doesn't overwhelm them to the point of breaking down where a couple of players who are very well versed in the game itself, ask during a different game "hey wasn't that fun this time round!?" after a game went well, when i hadn't changed anything, i just rolled and the dice seemed to go in their favor and they went somewhere and started uncovering more of the plots they were involved in.

i've avoided railroading at all costs. i run open world games in my own fictional world i've created and there's politics going on that players don't even know about etc. i keep it all in my book of secrets ya know? the main thing that has caused me to reflect and say "gosh i never want to have to do this again" is that my two players who themselves are DM's of games, just didn't understand why and kept asking "it was crap when this happened, why did that happen!?" and every time the answer was "well, investigate it further, that's a great question your character should ask and look into, not you the player" and i ended up just telling them some of the unknown plots of my game to just get them off my back. it was a real bummer cuz its always fun being able to keep players in the dark for reveals you know? i don't keep them in the dark blind though. i give em torches, hooks to investigate. and all that. its just that this game has been very chaotic (its a monsters game where everyone's playing the "bad guy")

it seems like the players who spoke up about this were the only ones that were bugged too. so maybe just players getting used to my DMing style. but i want to get any advice on situations like this from some of you if you'd be so kind.

so that's my plight.

any advice is greatly appreciated!

[Tvtyrant]

Sounds like they aren't enjoying things as they are. I would ask them what exactly they don't like/think is making it unfun, and if you don't want to accomodate it drop the game and let someone else DM.

On the realism vs. RoC, remember that people are there to have fun and so are you. The other stuff is really just paint.

[JeenLeen]

I can sympathize with you and with your players.

My main advice is to talk to all the players, ideally as a group (or one-on-one, as needed), and talk to them about issues with the game, what they enjoy, what they don't, etc. Explain that part of the issue is that your world is 'alive' and that the NPCs have their subplots and politics going on, and a lot of this is how the players' actions interact with the NPCs, directly or indirectly.

I've both played and run a oWoD game where the goal was to be like you. In both, the players sometimes felt like they were screwed no matter what they did for reasons they didn't understand. But the players felt okay calling the DM on it, and respecting when the DM said, "There is a reason this happened." A couple times when I was DM, I admitted a goof and changed something, or mitigated the backlash from an event after giving it more consideration. (I'm less experienced than the DM who ran the game I was a player in.)

So part of it is DM trust. This doesn't mean your players don't trust you, but they might need reassurance that things are happening for a reason, not just randomness or vindictiveness. You certainly don't have to tell them the reason. However, if something ever becomes moot, you might want to build trust by explaining what happened for why. For example, if ten games ago they got ambushed for no perceivable reason, and this game they killed Duke Dudeman (to them, a new NPC enemy), you can reveal that Duke Dudeman was responsible for the ambush and did it way back then because the PCs stopped his slave traders 20 games ago.
It's info the players don't know, but there's no harm in them knowing since Dudeman is dead, so might as well tell them to build the consistency of the game world.

[Quertus]

This has absolutely nothing to do with your thread title.

Personally, I think that this is an issue of building GM trust, and building player confidence in their ability to unravel your world.

When I design open worlds, I always start the PCs near a few secrets that they can uncover quickly and easily. Hopefully, they'll latch onto at least one, question it, and resolve it. If I have to, if they just walk away stumped, I'll explain things to them after the fact, and go over, in excruciating detail, the numerous ways that they could have uncovered this data. Wash, rinse, repeat - preferably in a series of one-shots, and paying attention to what they do try - until everyone is on the same page, until the players know that there is rhyme and reason, and have the player skills to investigate.

[Yerok LliGcam]

cool. sorry for mislabeling, new to the forum, just discovered the comics. i think DM trust is probably the key i see. i've played out situations for them to discover, and for the most part my players are great and going around and having fun, and things they walk away from is fine most times, i just have something happen in the background that they can discover next time they go do it. the thing that discouraged me the most was that next time we played, i literally changed nothing, the players just went and snuck up on the local lord and learned he was the one who ran a cult, and they started seeing the reasons behind all the crazy.



what are your experiences with ways to explain "this is happening for a reason" without having to literally explain why out of game the plots and subplots? that work for you guys?

i've put hooks, i've linked things together, and to a certain point its become "i don't care about that right now, walking away" and that's fine. they just wont know what's happening when the consequences come round again.

so when players don't seem to be interested in finding out why, what has worked for you to explain the why without having to do so after the game or between sessions?

or is that really just the best approach?

cuz i understand and my players do to the difference between player knowledge and meta knowledge, but i find that meta knowledge will always affect player decisions. it just always does.

[VincentTakeda]

I've had 2 situations come about that reflect the trouble you're having on 2 different levels.

On one level I've had an npc surreptitiously place a curse on a pc that they discovered through play later in the game. I could have told the player out of character that his character had just surreptitiously received a curse that he was unaware of, and hope that he didn't find some way to murder the npc right then and there, but thats metagaming and by not tellling the player what had happened when it happened, I not only didn't give them the opportunity to metagame, I also, as you say, did not explain the cause of the condition, only the effect. Giving the players the opportunity to investigate the conditions causes, origins, and ways to remove it are what I consider not just mechanical elements, but also story (character journey) elements. The player nearly table flipped and quit the group. I explained to him that if i'd given him the meta knowledge that he'd been cursed in the moment he might have finagled an excuse to murderize the perpetrator on the spot and he agreed there's a pretty good chance that if he hadn't been able to discover the perpetrator in the moment he'd have murdered a whole tavern full of innocents (nuked it from orbit) just to be sure that he'd exacted vengeance for a situation that his character, in character, had no way of knowing. So he begrudgingly admitted to my assessment of why he should, as a player, be kept in the dark about things his character should be kept in the dark about. He agreed that he doesnt handle out of character knowledge well. But like you say... MAJOR not happy about it in the moment.

I took this situation to its logical conslusion however when I dialed the stakes up to 11. I was noticing our group had a tendency in our session zero of waiting to hear what the plot or environment or situation was first, then hand building a party specifically to handle that situation best, essentially putting the whole game on easy mode before the game even got started. My solution was I told them I wasnt going to discuss the plot or the environment or conditions of the campaign they were entering. They were each simply to make the kind of character that they'd be willing to take into as many possible situations as they can imagine. I called this the matrix armory white room of character construction. You don't know what you'll be facing. Build the guy you wanna be and we'll make it fun by seeing how well he handles everything I can throw at him. That way you're playing what you want to play for a change instead of always making a hammer purpose built to hit the particular nail of the day so to speak.

Prettty much had a full table meltdown at the suggestion and we spent several game days discussing the nature of meta knowledge and adventure gaming and came to the conclusion that the players both knew upfront that they were horrible at managing metagame knowledge, but didnt care and only really enjoyed the game if they knew mechanically what was happening to them and knew before the campaign started what kind of guys to make. They decided they only really have fun gaming when they're able to 'be the best tool for the job' every time. One player specifically said 'the only way I could make a character in a matrix style white room' would be to build the character entirely using random rolls. When asked to simply build the kinda guy that he wanted to play, he up front admitted that the only guy he wanted to play was 'whatever could kick the scenarios ass as simply and soundly and directly as possible' and that without a scenario to build around, he'd basically be picking stuff at random and didn't in particular gravitate to any character build as a 'go anywhere do anything adventurer'. He WANTS his character to be a tool... and not just a tool. The Best Tool. And thats all he cares about.

As a simulationist sandboxer this flies in the face of every game I'd ever played up to that point. Adventure gaming to me is 'build the guy you'd take anywhere to do any thing' and that way you're happy going anywhere or doing anything because you're taking (admittedly perhaps a less ideal tool) your character on a journey and being ill suited to handle all situations without challenging moments and occasional confusion is why we call it adventure gaming in the first place. The table pretty much came to the conclusion that what I have are problem solvers and engineers who enjoy kicking a problems ass without much on the investigation or mystery side of things. I do not have 'adventurers'.

So to your point, essentially I discovered that my style of gming is not the style of play my players were interested in. Kinda sad for me personally, but now when I run games for them they get all the meta up front so they're happy, and they get to practice being better about not abusing out of character knowledge more than any other group I've been in. Hopefully that means they'll get better at it.

[Yerok LliGcam]

yeah. maybe that's what i need to do.

i know that one-shots are a thing for a reason. open world gaming with ramifications for actions and now knowing why does bug some people...

the group i game with is pretty chill for the most part.

we have:
a wants to be the most awesome epic _________ in the game
a power gamer best tool in the box for the job
a chill out and watch and take a turn when its my turn
a lets laugh and have fun guys take it easy
a this D&D thing is fun!
and some rotating players (we play @ lunch at work so its pretty come and go sometimes)

so finding a good mix is hard. but that's very valid points. i actually had the DM who's been gaming for ages since 2e (D&D) say DURING GAME

"....oh... oh i think i know what that is" but his character wasn't with the others he was just stating this, he stayed quite about it. but i could see a look of "oh... yeah i heard about whats happening... well that surprise was ruined..." kind of thing.

so yeah...

fun fun

[VincentTakeda]

On a positive note the fact that I'm announcing every shapeshifter or invisible spy to the party out of character is starting to present itself as the absurdity that I consider it to be... Knowing everything is taking some of the enjoyment out of play and I'm getting a chance to show it instead of simply tell it.

I also super agree with your statement that DM trust is probably what turned my players into the kinds of players they are. None of them gamed with me growing up and each of them apparently has seen some of the worst gming I've ever heard of.

[Mr Beer]

If there's a million plots happening and the players are constantly blundering around not knowing WTF just happened...maybe tone down the complexity?

If you have multiple foci and layers within layers and subplots, some people find that amazing and some people find it boring and confusing.

For myself, I admire the ability to juggle a lot of things but I think linearly. I want straightforward goals and then I want to work towards those without getting endlessly sidetracked and especially not having to deal with numerous factions I've somehow unwittingly offended in the course of achieving my aims.

That doesn't mean railroad me, it means present choices and opportunities and let me run with them.

Now sure if I do something idiotic that will get me shot by law enforcement at worst and jailed for life +20 at best, fine throw the book at me. If I want to assault the vampire's lair and I don't bother doing some elementary recon and investigation first when I have every opportunity to do so, OK well let me walk into the firestorm, because I deserve it. But don't make me deal with Machiavellian subplots all the time because I just don't care about that stuff.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, first don't over think it. Everything happens for a reason, BUT the players (and characters) will likely NOT EVER know about half the reasons at least half the time. This is just the reality of it. If your running a complicated game, you simply don't have the time to make everything perfect.

BUT, it's not in any way a bad thing, and you should not worry about it. And, the players should not worry about it. In any complex fiction, there is never enough time for everything. Think of any good movie or TV show and how they often leave things a mystery.

And quite often the players should guess the ''why'' anyway...and not have any way to know if it is right or wrong.

If you do really feel the need to ''wrap everything up'' all you need to do is add details. Members of the assassins guild have dagger tattoos behind the left ear, so if the PCs get ''randomly'' attacked by someone, and then check his ear, they will find the tattoo(and know that guild is still after them). If you want to go over the top, you can always add 'wanted scrolls' or 'notes' or even just have the NPcs say why.

Again, a lot of fiction has very talkative characters for a reason: To tell the audience things. You can do the same thing: have characters that talk too much.

[Pex]

It sounds like you are being too secretive. You're enjoying your game world because you have your own drama going on behind the scenes. You are writing a story to yourself and looking forward to the next plot point to happen even when the PCs have absolutely nothing to do with it. That's the problem. The PCs are minor characters in your story. They know nothing of what's going on and have little to no effect on the events that happen.

For a game to be fun for players they have to be the center of the attention. The gameworld has to revolve around them. NPCs can have their agendas, but the most important thing that's happening in the gameworld right now is whatever the PCs are doing. That doesn't mean saving the world important. Rather the focus of the story is on the PCs. What they do matters. NPCs in whatever their agendas are react to them. What an NPC is doing 1,000 miles away that the PCs have never met, will never meet, and have no association to where the PCs geographically are in the gameworld is absolutely totally irrelevant and might as well not exist. The PCs are the game, not your private drama.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If there's a million plots happening and the players are constantly blundering around not knowing WTF just happened...maybe tone down the complexity?

...
But don't make me deal with Machiavellian subplots all the time because I just don't care about that stuff.
Very much this. Your players have spoken; they don't want such a complicated web of intrigue.

[Rendakor]

For a game to be fun for players they have to be the center of the attention. The gameworld has to revolve around them. NPCs can have their agendas, but the most important thing that's happening in the gameworld right now is whatever the PCs are doing. That doesn't mean saving the world important. Rather the focus of the story is on the PCs. What they do matters. NPCs in whatever their agendas are react to them. What an NPC is doing 1,000 miles away that the PCs have never met, will never meet, and have no association to where the PCs geographically are in the gameworld is absolutely totally irrelevant and might as well not exist. The PCs are the game, not your private drama.

I'm not sure this is universally true. Having NPCs that act according to their own agenda without regard for the PCs' actions are, to me, what makes a world believable. The PCs are important, perhaps the most important, but the world does not have to revolve around them. A world where the NPCs and their societies all continue to act, move, and change without interaction from the PCs is a true world; a world where every rumor in every tavern is just a hook for a level-appropriate adventure is a game.

To illustrate with an example, consider something like a war. Mechanically, running large-scale battles is not something D&D does well. At low levels, PCs would at best be mid-level soldiers or scouts; at high levels, they would trivialize the entire concept of large battles by decimating hordes with big nukes and great cleave. Of course, it's possible to run a campaign that's centered around war, but it's very non-traditional; players who signed up to save princesses and slay dragons are not likely to have fun in a long, bitter siege in the cold of winter. So, what does a DM do? Do wars never happen in-game, because they aren't centered around the players? If the PCs had a side-quest opportunity to prevent the war but skipped it, should the war not happen, because it doesn't involve them anymore? There are all sorts of things like this that I can imagine that should be happening in an active, fantasy world; should these things not happen if the PCs aren't around?

Furthermore, once PCs are sufficiently high level to access spells like teleport and plane shift, no part of the world is really out of reach of the PCs. If you allow your players the freedom to use those tools, than anything happening thousands of miles away could still potentially be relevant. Sure, you can have every part of the world remain static until the PCs get there, but that's just a game; not a world.

Of course, you need to ensure your PCs are having fun, and not all players like pure sandboxes. Some feel analysis paralysis when presented with too many choices, others don't pick up on subtle hints, and some just aren't interested in that kind of game; sometimes players want to be railroaded along an interesting, linear story; other players are just playing for fun, tactical combat, and some dudes just want to hang out with their friends. Figuring out what works for everyone, DM and player alike, is the tricky part. But open world, sandbox style gameplay is certainly a valid playstyle for some groups.

[icefractal]

Now personally I like the kind of world where there are NPCs with their own agendas doing things that the PCs can interfere/help with or not, and will have results regardless.

BUT - that doesn't mean I want a game where the PCs lose before they know it, due to events they never found out about. That's an entirely plausible and reasonable thing to happen, but it isn't fun (to most players). Realistically, for every world where the PCs accomplish important things, there would be hundreds where they die as nobodies. But we don't have to choose those worlds to play in, and - given finite gaming time - most of us don't want to.

So while a naturalistic style is fine, it generally needs to be tuned so that the players have a chance and know enough to be making meaningful choices, even if those players aren't anything close to strategic masterminds.

[Pex]

I'm not sure this is universally true. Having NPCs that act according to their own agenda without regard for the PCs' actions are, to me, what makes a world believable. The PCs are important, perhaps the most important, but the world does not have to revolve around them. A world where the NPCs and their societies all continue to act, move, and change without interaction from the PCs is a true world; a world where every rumor in every tavern is just a hook for a level-appropriate adventure is a game.

To illustrate with an example, consider something like a war. Mechanically, running large-scale battles is not something D&D does well. At low levels, PCs would at best be mid-level soldiers or scouts; at high levels, they would trivialize the entire concept of large battles by decimating hordes with big nukes and great cleave. Of course, it's possible to run a campaign that's centered around war, but it's very non-traditional; players who signed up to save princesses and slay dragons are not likely to have fun in a long, bitter siege in the cold of winter. So, what does a DM do? Do wars never happen in-game, because they aren't centered around the players? If the PCs had a side-quest opportunity to prevent the war but skipped it, should the war not happen, because it doesn't involve them anymore? There are all sorts of things like this that I can imagine that should be happening in an active, fantasy world; should these things not happen if the PCs aren't around?

Furthermore, once PCs are sufficiently high level to access spells like teleport and plane shift, no part of the world is really out of reach of the PCs. If you allow your players the freedom to use those tools, than anything happening thousands of miles away could still potentially be relevant. Sure, you can have every part of the world remain static until the PCs get there, but that's just a game; not a world.

Of course, you need to ensure your PCs are having fun, and not all players like pure sandboxes. Some feel analysis paralysis when presented with too many choices, others don't pick up on subtle hints, and some just aren't interested in that kind of game; sometimes players want to be railroaded along an interesting, linear story; other players are just playing for fun, tactical combat, and some dudes just want to hang out with their friends. Figuring out what works for everyone, DM and player alike, is the tricky part. But open world, sandbox style gameplay is certainly a valid playstyle for some groups.

If two nations the PCs have no interaction with go to war with each other, the only person who cares is the DM. If the PCs are in one of the nations and aren't involved but the war impacts their adventures, downtime, and supply access, then the war is an annoying interference. If they can't leave the war zone then the DM is forcing their hand. For the PCs to care they have to be involved somehow in that war. Involved can mean anything - spies for the other country, fighting the enemy, finding new allies, finding new resources the country can use, throw a piece of jewelry the BBEG covets into lava but it's a long journey without access to teleportation or flight.

[Knaight]

I'm not sure this is universally true. Having NPCs that act according to their own agenda without regard for the PCs' actions are, to me, what makes a world believable. The PCs are important, perhaps the most important, but the world does not have to revolve around them. A world where the NPCs and their societies all continue to act, move, and change without interaction from the PCs is a true world; a world where every rumor in every tavern is just a hook for a level-appropriate adventure is a game.

There's a distinction be be drawn between what's going on and what gets directly described, and it's the second that warrants the focus on the PCs. It's less about what's going on in the setting and what gets framed, the scenes played versus the ones just glossed over quickly, the situations presented as background versus those presented as relevant, that sort of thing. The PC's can be totally unimportant to the world, but they should be very relevant to their world, which might just contain a tiny village, or a small group of important people, or other such limited things.

[MrSandman]

If there's a million plots happening and the players are constantly blundering around not knowing WTF just happened...maybe tone down the complexity?


It sounds like you are being too secretive. You're enjoying your game world because you have your own drama going on behind the scenes. You are writing a story to yourself and looking forward to the next plot point to happen even when the PCs have absolutely nothing to do with it. That's the problem. The PCs are minor characters in your story. They know nothing of what's going on and have little to no effect on the events that happen.



There's a distinction be be drawn between what's going on and what gets directly described, and it's the second that warrants the focus on the PCs. It's less about what's going on in the setting and what gets framed, the scenes played versus the ones just glossed over quickly, the situations presented as background versus those presented as relevant, that sort of thing. The PC's can be totally unimportant to the world, but they should be very relevant to their world, which might just contain a tiny village, or a small group of important people, or other such limited things.

All these are very good points to consider when you think and talk with your players about what's not working in your game.

[Satinavian]

it was a real bummer cuz its always fun being able to keep players in the dark for reveals you know?
that seems to be the core problem.

Sure, the reveal and when suddenly all makes sense is fun. But when does this happen ? Near the end of the conclusion of the plotline. So for most of the gaming time the players don't have a clue what is going on. Which can easily feel as if all is pointless and random and inconsequential. It is also a motivation problem. As the Players don't know what is going on, they can't really invest themself in the real conflict of your story.

That it all eventually makes sense is a promise that doesn't help that much because the gaming experience before that reveal is still as bad as if there was no hidden truth.


The investigation opportunity is something else that is hard to make fun. Not every character fits investigation stories, not all players like them, there is, again the motivational problem (why would the PCs want to investigate seemingly random crap ? PCs don't know the main story is that way). Success is not guatranteed for the players (they will never know if they will find meaning in all the nonsense by investigation) and it can frustrate easily.



Yes, a complex world with believable politics and reasons why things happen and NPCs/Monsters who use their brain is a lot of fun. BUT the fun is only ever shared by players when they can see and understand this.

[Rhedyn]

The bulk of your work should be viewable by the players.

I played in one game where the GM was clearly putting in a lot of effort but it was all in things we never saw, thus it ended badly.

[Quertus]

what are your experiences with ways to explain "this is happening for a reason" without having to literally explain why out of game the plots and subplots? that work for you guys?

i've put hooks, i've linked things together, and to a certain point its become "i don't care about that right now, walking away" and that's fine. they just wont know what's happening when the consequences come round again.

so when players don't seem to be interested in finding out why, what has worked for you to explain the why without having to do so after the game or between sessions?

or is that really just the best approach?

cuz i understand and my players do to the difference between player knowledge and meta knowledge, but i find that meta knowledge will always affect player decisions. it just always does.

Ok, let's start here. You don't give them meta knowledge about anything that still exists.

You start with a one shot. Blah, blah, blah, stuff, stuff, stuff, follow the rule of three (at least!), all so obvious that the 5-year-olds you told the plot to all guessed the ending before you were done. But the party is utterly shocked when the princess is thrown into / jumps into the volcano.

Then you step the party through exactly what was going on, through every single opportunity that they had to interact with the plot before it went extra crispy.

Repeat with a second one-shot. And again. Until your style of description and their style of asking questions are in sync.

When the party feels comfortable with that level of complexity, move on to a multi-session plot. Or two overlapping plots.

Only once you're sure that everyone is ready do you run an actual complex multilayer campaign.

Or, at least, that's the ideal.

And, at that point, you shouldn't need to tell them anything OOC. Sometimes, I would tell my players, "hmmm... That is a good question...", and that was all it would take to reassure them that there was a coherent reason lying beneath the surface, and get them instigating in earnest.

-----

Also, don't force things that they walk away from to come back in their face later. That feels like punitive GMing - I set this up, and by Gump you're going to deal with it. Don't do that. Intentionally set up more than they can deal with, be cool with them walking away from most of it. Create a few one-shots with two plots, of which they can only follow one, to get yourself (and them) in the correct mindset.

Don't build the campaign contingent upon them following a particular path of breadcrumbs. Follow the Rule of Three (at a minimum).

-----

On a personal note, as a player, I hate having meta knowledge. Few things can ruin a game more. Make sure to give the players plenty of opportunities to learn anything that you want them to know for the main campaign - often, told from different points of view, so that hearing it several times will actually still feel new and exciting. It's a cool twist on the Rule of Three. :smallwink:


It sounds like you are being too secretive. You're enjoying your game world because you have your own drama going on behind the scenes. You are writing a story to yourself and looking forward to the next plot point to happen even when the PCs have absolutely nothing to do with it. That's the problem. The PCs are minor characters in your story. They know nothing of what's going on and have little to no effect on the events that happen.

For a game to be fun for players they have to be the center of the attention. The gameworld has to revolve around them. NPCs can have their agendas, but the most important thing that's happening in the gameworld right now is whatever the PCs are doing. That doesn't mean saving the world important. Rather the focus of the story is on the PCs. What they do matters. NPCs in whatever their agendas are react to them. What an NPC is doing 1,000 miles away that the PCs have never met, will never meet, and have no association to where the PCs geographically are in the gameworld is absolutely totally irrelevant and might as well not exist. The PCs are the game, not your private drama.

I don't think that that's the problem; or, at best, it's the problem looked at from a very odd angle. The story is about the PCs, yes, but The Plots needn't be.

See, a living, breathing world is awesome, IMO. It's something that the GM is invested in, which is good, and, done right, is something rife with opportunities for the PCs to do Sandboxy stuff, which, IMO, is the only good. Ok, I'm clearly biased on that last bit. :smallwink:

Point is, done right, having a GM running lots of plots, and making the world for the world's sake is great.

However, the world needs to be highly accessible to the PCs for the game to be fun (for most styles of play, including what I believe the group in question expects).

The PCs need to have whatever combination of right place, right time, right social status (high or low or outcast or whatever), right connections, right stars in alignment, whatever, to be able to interact with The Plots. For most games, that means affect the outcome of The Plots in meaningful, predictable ways; however, some games are run quite successfully as "and this is how this plot will ***** us over" (I don't recommend this style with this group).

The players / PCs need to be given the details that the players need to become interested in and understand The Plots.

The players need something to make them Invested in the outcome of The Plots.

And, as stated above, the players and the GM should be in sync about how to look at and investigate these plots (And, assuming that The Plots are not way above their pay grade, they should be in sync regarding how to manipulate The Plots). Also, Rule of Three.

So long as the GM is at least as careful in creating the setup for the PCs as he is in creating the world, a game where the GM is running lots of complex background plots should not only be fun, it should be bloody awesome!

Yes, even if - especially if - the PCs never directly touch on half of them.


Now personally I like the kind of world where there are NPCs with their own agendas doing things that the PCs can interfere/help with or not, and will have results regardless.

BUT - that doesn't mean I want a game where the PCs lose before they know it, due to events they never found out about. That's an entirely plausible and reasonable thing to happen, but it isn't fun (to most players). Realistically, for every world where the PCs accomplish important things, there would be hundreds where they die as nobodies. But we don't have to choose those worlds to play in, and - given finite gaming time - most of us don't want to.

So while a naturalistic style is fine, it generally needs to be tuned so that the players have a chance and know enough to be making meaningful choices, even if those players aren't anything close to strategic masterminds.

Very much this.

The GM should choose very carefully where/when he puts the PCs in his living world, to give them the most fun opportunities to interact meaningfully, to learn and understand. And, as unthinkable as it is, to not lose before they know it.

[Quertus]

The bulk of your work should be viewable by the players.

I played in one game where the GM was clearly putting in a lot of effort but it was all in things we never saw, thus it ended badly.

That is not cause and effect. I have played in (and run) many successful games where the PCs only touched on the tip of the iceberg of the world. Heck, I expect any one of us only touches the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in this world (Worst. Game. Ever. BTW.).

No, there are clearly other factors involved that added up to create "thus, it ended badly". If you can expound upon those, it might be really helpful for the OP, and to the rest of us.

Sadly, I'm too senile to remember if I ever knew what those other factors were in the complex games that failed. Other than throwing players straight into the deep end, without calibrating investigation Q&A via one-shots, that is.

[JeenLeen]

One additional advice, and a big one my favorite DM gave me: don't have more than three levels of deception, and that's for big bads (or big, Machiavellian manipulators who are neutral or on your side). For most enemies, just one level or two if you really need it.

That keeps some complexity, paranoia, and other desirable traits (assuming they are desirable for your game), but not a lot.

Some examples from games I've played. Except for the barkeep rogue, they're from oWoD Mage.

Level 0 (but players might think there's deception): Duke Dudeman is the leader of the Order of Mages. He's known to be a jerk, but fair. The party is investigating McGuffin Lore, and he happens to collect that lore as a hobby. He tells you a rival's friend has some parchment with the lore on it. Your team can just scry to read the lore they want, but if they steal it and kill the rival's friend, he'll give you a copy of some lore he already has.
He's being completely honest, but seems like he's building material to blackmail you or screw you over.

Level 1 (one lie): the barkeep rogue seems friendly to you, but is actually hoping you take out the local bad guy so she can take over the drug trade in town. She lies about her motivation, but is otherwise honest.
For most notable NPCs who you want to lie, this is probably what you want.

Level 1 (another example, being two linked lies): the players found the Sword of Not-Burning-in-Sunlight, and think vampires might want to trade for it. They contact their contact, a Nosferatu in the sewers.
The vampire says he could put them in touch with the local Prince, but it'd cost a favor. He wants them to kill some zombies that have set up camp in the sewers.
Actuality: he knows the sword is crazy-good, but if he tries to get it himself he'll lose it. The Prince will reward him for just telling him about it, but why not collect two payments, one from the PCs, one from the Prince? So he lies about how good the sword is and how much trouble it is to get a meeting with the Prince.

Level 2: in the main base, there's a Cult of Ecstasy (mages focusing on pleasure, drugs, sex, etc.) drifter. There's also a man (Tom) & his wife. Tom's wife is killed, and he gets depressed and starts 'medicating' with the drifter. Also, the drifter's best friend starts getting really paranoid, acting strange, etc. The PCs start to fear the drifter's friend is going Nephandi. Through a convoluted plot, they find out he's not, so they start to suspect others.
Tom is eventually outted as evil, and flees. (PCs later kill him in a battle.)
Reality: the Cultist is an evil mage. He wasn't corrupting his best friend, but was messing with his mind to draw suspicion, so folk wouldn't suspect the evil mage as evil. He also killed Tom's wife in order to make Tom ripe for corrupting. Lie 1: not an evil mage. Lie 2: corrupting one dude while appearing to help, while not corrupting another dude while making him seem corrupted
Extra funny: the Cultist was the best mage at scrying through time, so he was asked to look into Tom's wife's death. He didn't see anything because he had Time-shielded himself very well before doing the act.
So you can manage a few of these and keep things coherent.

Level 3 (this was a major plot thing in a Mage game I was in): a mage was killed and his apprentice kidnapped by evil mages. They tortured her, raped her, etc., until the PCs saved her. She came to live at the PCs' base (along with other NPC mages) and was an acquaintance, slowly becoming an ally over the years. Near the end, became a strong ally and even accompanied the party to help defeat Voormas (big bad mage trying to put the world into stasis). Then, after defeating him and taking his McGuffin, she killed the party and freed her dark masters.
Reality: the evil mages killed the mage and apprentice, and had his daughter assume the form of the apprentice plus doing some mojo on her mind to help hide her identity. Then rape/torture her until the PCs 'save' her. It was all part of a Prophecy that would let the evil mages release their dark masters, but to do it they needed two tools, one held by Voormas and one protected from evil. So they manipulated the PCs to find the protected tool, and then the PCs used that to help defeat Voormas.
Then, since the PCs had both tools, she attacked the (very weakened) PCs.
Along the way, she killed most of the allied good mages in town and fed info to the evil mages, keeping tabs on the PCs.
You can see you probably don't want more than 1 person having that much complexity.

Part of the reason for this advice is that you really don't need tons of levels of complexity. It can work well in a heist movie or show (e.g, Ocean's 11) where there's one major thing -- and thus a level 3 lie or two is managable -- but having too many complex ones just confuses things for everyone, players and DM. It makes things less fun, since players can't feel the fun of solving the puzzle, and makes it seem like the DM is screwing with them or stuff is just random.

[Yerok LliGcam]

Well, first don't over think it. Everything happens for a reason, BUT the players (and characters) will likely NOT EVER know about half the reasons at least half the time. This is just the reality of it. If your running a complicated game, you simply don't have the time to make everything perfect.

BUT, it's not in any way a bad thing, and you should not worry about it. And, the players should not worry about it. In any complex fiction, there is never enough time for everything. Think of any good movie or TV show and how they often leave things a mystery.

And quite often the players should guess the ''why'' anyway...and not have any way to know if it is right or wrong.

If you do really feel the need to ''wrap everything up'' all you need to do is add details. Members of the assassins guild have dagger tattoos behind the left ear, so if the PCs get ''randomly'' attacked by someone, and then check his ear, they will find the tattoo(and know that guild is still after them). If you want to go over the top, you can always add 'wanted scrolls' or 'notes' or even just have the NPcs say why.

Again, a lot of fiction has very talkative characters for a reason: To tell the audience things. You can do the same thing: have characters that talk too much.

hahaha i even did wanted scrolls. first game, necromancer drow torches a tavern, so he was labeled an arsonist.

[Yerok LliGcam]

What an NPC is doing 1,000 miles away that the PCs have never met, will never meet, and have no association to where the PCs geographically are in the gameworld is absolutely totally irrelevant and might as well not exist. The PCs are the game, not your private drama.

Well let me be clear, I'm not making things that happen outside the games scope matter much unless if makes sense to do so.

I have a living breathing world with things going on behind the scenes. But I'm not having a care for whats going on that wouldn't make sense. All I do is make sure that world events have an effect on the game when necessary. For example they're in a kingdom at war with another one. So there's ramifications for that, although they've gone to level 8 and still haven't left the first city. Npcs have their agendas and that equates to ramification for actions which I'm doing. Nothing more. When the players stir the pot, ripples happen.

This doesn't mean my players are not the center of the game. They are. What am I gonna do sit down and tell them for 3 hours what NPCs are doing? Of course not. The main issue is when they stir up the pot and I react and they panic and say "what? This isn't cool what's happening?" when all I've done is be realistic with what would happen in a situation like that, that's the main issue I'm facing. I don't want to have to say "thugs show up with clubs in hand, (guys these guys are here because 2 games ago remember that lady you saved from a bully? These guys are his guild friends)" that's not fun for anyone.

The fun in open world games is exploring it, my players do that. And enjoy it. It's just when things get a little hairy due to stepping on a lot of toes that they got panicked and two players got upset thinking that my actions were unfair. They raised up a town in revolt and the local lord(a warlock unknown to them except now the two players who had got upset and had a "fix your game cuz I'm upset" talk with me) used drugs to force his men's loyalty. So the peasants were slaughtered. Happens. The players didn't like it. But that's what happens when you mess with power. I even let their rumors Dow discord in the forces and rolled percentile to see how many of the men were affected. It was high.

A game world that revolves around the players is extremely wash rinse repeat and pretty unrealistic. A game where players are dropped into and it's a living breathing thing with consequences and real danger of death. That's far more fun. And my players don't disagree, many of the other campaigns we're playing are like mine.

I just tend to be more harsh with reality. And less video gamey.

[Yerok LliGcam]

I'm not sure this is universally true. Having NPCs that act according to their own agenda without regard for the PCs' actions are, to me, what makes a world believable. The PCs are important, perhaps the most important, but the world does not have to revolve around them. A world where the NPCs and their societies all continue to act, move, and change without interaction from the PCs is a true world; a world where every rumor in every tavern is just a hook for a level-appropriate adventure is a game.

To illustrate with an example, consider something like a war. Mechanically, running large-scale battles is not something D&D does well. At low levels, PCs would at best be mid-level soldiers or scouts; at high levels, they would trivialize the entire concept of large battles by decimating hordes with big nukes and great cleave. Of course, it's possible to run a campaign that's centered around war, but it's very non-traditional; players who signed up to save princesses and slay dragons are not likely to have fun in a long, bitter siege in the cold of winter. So, what does a DM do? Do wars never happen in-game, because they aren't centered around the players? If the PCs had a side-quest opportunity to prevent the war but skipped it, should the war not happen, because it doesn't involve them anymore? There are all sorts of things like this that I can imagine that should be happening in an active, fantasy world; should these things not happen if the PCs aren't around?

Furthermore, once PCs are sufficiently high level to access spells like teleport and plane shift, no part of the world is really out of reach of the PCs. If you allow your players the freedom to use those tools, than anything happening thousands of miles away could still potentially be relevant. Sure, you can have every part of the world remain static until the PCs get there, but that's just a game; not a world.

Of course, you need to ensure your PCs are having fun, and not all players like pure sandboxes. Some feel analysis paralysis when presented with too many choices, others don't pick up on subtle hints, and some just aren't interested in that kind of game; sometimes players want to be railroaded along an interesting, linear story; other players are just playing for fun, tactical combat, and some dudes just want to hang out with their friends. Figuring out what works for everyone, DM and player alike, is the tricky part. But open world, sandbox style gameplay is certainly a valid playstyle for some groups.


yes so its funny, i had them start in a mountain city (which they haven't left yet) in the middle of a kingdom that is at war with another to the south.

so the ramifications of their actions led to the rumors of plague, leading to no more recruitment, and a food shortage as peddlers and merchants avoided the city. now they have upset people, who they rose into revolt, to take down the local lord. who used drugs to keep his soldiers loyal and fight back, and the bard in the group started some rumors that spread and caused discord in his forces regardless of the compulsive drugs.

i had all these elements in play, nothing out of the realm that didn't concern them at the time, and they were just panicking because we had so much going on with all the players ajendas and sidequests that were essentially all coming together in really interesting ways.

and when that happens and the players say "i don't like this this shouldn't be happenign WHY are the soldiers fighting to kill their families!?" out of game, that's when i say to myself "i can tell them, or i can say "that's a great question, what does your character think? would they like to investigate it further? or ignore what's happenign around them and skip town? both are viable options."

in the end that's what i did. after they coerced some key plots out of me and learned meta knowledge. and i saw it kidn of ruin a reveal for one of them just two days back during the game.

and i guess that just happens sometimes...

[Yerok LliGcam]

If two nations the PCs have no interaction with go to war with each other, the only person who cares is the DM. If the PCs are in one of the nations and aren't involved but the war impacts their adventures, downtime, and supply access, then the war is an annoying interference. If they can't leave the war zone then the DM is forcing their hand. For the PCs to care they have to be involved somehow in that war. Involved can mean anything - spies for the other country, fighting the enemy, finding new allies, finding new resources the country can use, throw a piece of jewelry the BBEG covets into lava but it's a long journey without access to teleportation or flight.

Why can't players deal with annoying interference and still have fun playing an adventurer? You seem to suggest that hardship shouldn't happen and players should have a "I'm the hero so life is simple for me" thing.

This is the issue with building dm trust. Players need to realise that table top IS NOT a video game. Where things are geared to them. If they want to pick a fight with a dragon why is it my responsibility to ensure they survive? If they want to burn down a tavern, spread rumors about a plague in a war zone, stir up normal civilians to open rebellion with the powerful lord who is a powerful warlock for a backstory, why should that guy sit idly waiting for his boss battle? Isn't it reasonable that he hire spies to seek out these guys? Get one of his captain's to hunt them down, and isn't it reasonable that when the players are trying to go about their day that these "annoying interferences" happen?

[Yerok LliGcam]

that seems to be the core problem.

Sure, the reveal and when suddenly all makes sense is fun. But when does this happen ? Near the end of the conclusion of the plotline. So for most of the gaming time the players don't have a clue what is going on. Which can easily feel as if all is pointless and random and inconsequential. It is also a motivation problem. As the Players don't know what is going on, they can't really invest themself in the real conflict of your story.

That it all eventually makes sense is a promise that doesn't help that much because the gaming experience before that reveal is still as bad as if there was no hidden truth.


The investigation opportunity is something else that is hard to make fun. Not every character fits investigation stories, not all players like them, there is, again the motivational problem (why would the PCs want to investigate seemingly random crap ? PCs don't know the main story is that way). Success is not guatranteed for the players (they will never know if they will find meaning in all the nonsense by investigation) and it can frustrate easily.



Yes, a complex world with believable politics and reasons why things happen and NPCs/Monsters who use their brain is a lot of fun. BUT the fun is only ever shared by players when they can see and understand this.

If I've made it abundantly clear that they can walk away though and they don't do I just stop being real? Do Npcs just "turn off" or go on pause?
That's a video game. That's not a table top rpg

[Pleh]

Put yourself in their shoes while planning.

"Prison break" can be a really fun scenario to play in, but first you must be incarcerated. Imagine someone else running that game for you. What are some things you'd want that game to refrain from doing to you?

If the DM keeps throwing successive curveballs to keep you from simply escaping, at what point would it begin to get stale and unfun?

It's kind of the same with hidden plots. How long does ANYONE tolerate getting strung along in the dark?

Now, the other thing to remember is that all players need to accept the journey through the rabbit hole is that you let them come up for air occasionally. What I mean is, if ANY secret plot keeps affecting them personally and directly AND you want them to investigate, throw them a hint that there is something they want to investigate.

You caught that ruffian across the bar/street/etc staring at you. He disappeared the next moment.

*invisible spy sits quietly to eavesdrop on the party* For a fleeting moment, you have the eerie sense that you are being watched.

As you inspect the goblin den, something you can't quite place seems to be amiss.

What I'm suggesting is throw them a line. Give the hint that something might be worth investigating and give it freely. Then be careful that choosing to investigate only provides a clue, not a full plot reveal.

You come to where the ruffian was standing and find a parchment with a drawing of your face dropped in the gutter nearby.

Upon discovering the invisible spy, they use their readied action to teleport to safety.

After investigating the goblin den, it becomes clear that the clutter isn't merely the haphazard lifestyle of the residents; someone else has already searched this place for something.

Basically, give them the absolute certainty that something is going on so they can be on the same page that the fun you intend from the game is discovering what that could be.

You're not tipping your hand. You're tipping that you HAVE a hand that could be tipped.

[Yerok LliGcam]

The bulk of your work should be viewable by the players.

I played in one game where the GM was clearly putting in a lot of effort but it was all in things we never saw, thus it ended badly.

sorry but i find that idea of having my DM work viewable kind of ridiculous. its not really a table top game then is it? it's cooperative imagination. I think it's still possible to build player trust and leave them in the dark. you just have to help them understand that this is a fictional game, and its not a videogame that accomodates them.


Ok, let's start here. You don't give them meta knowledge about anything that still exists.


agreed. meta knowledge isn't fun for players, i say this from both viewpoints.



You start with a one shot. Blah, blah, blah, stuff, stuff, stuff, follow the rule of three (at least!), all so obvious that the 5-year-olds you told the plot to all guessed the ending before you were done. But the party is utterly shocked when the princess is thrown into / jumps into the volcano.

Then you step the party through exactly what was going on, through every single opportunity that they had to interact with the plot before it went extra crispy.

Repeat with a second one-shot. And again. Until your style of description and their style of asking questions are in sync.

When the party feels comfortable with that level of complexity, move on to a multi-session plot. Or two overlapping plots.

Only once you're sure that everyone is ready do you run an actual complex multilayer campaign.

Or, at least, that's the ideal.

And, at that point, you shouldn't need to tell them anything OOC. Sometimes, I would tell my players, "hmmm... That is a good question...", and that was all it would take to reassure them that there was a coherent reason lying beneath the surface, and get them instigating in earnest.


disagree. i don't need to baby my players. people hate feeling babied. people can learn through hard stuff. and DM trust can still occur. if someone throws up their hands and says "i don't like this its too hard that when i push they push back" they are playing the wrong thing. go play a video game (has anyone picked up on the fact that i hate videogames yet? lol)



-----

Also, don't force things that they walk away from to come back in their face later. That feels like punitive GMing - I set this up, and by Gump you're going to deal with it. Don't do that. Intentionally set up more than they can deal with, be cool with them walking away from most of it. Create a few one-shots with two plots, of which they can only follow one, to get yourself (and them) in the correct mindset.

Don't build the campaign contingent upon them following a particular path of breadcrumbs. Follow the Rule of Three (at a minimum).

-----


again totally disagree, i don't need to accomodate them. they are playing a role playing game. doesn't automatically make them the hero, doesn't mean enemies play nicely, doesn't mean they can't survive or run away either. but they can learn that when they run, monsters chase, or when they piss off NPCs with real power, they can very much screw themselves over.

question - how often do you kill of a character in one of your games? and how do you players react to it? in one of my games i played in with the DM who complained in my OP DMing, he killed a player the FIRST GAME. and the player was fine with it. he opened fire needlessly on an NPC in the middle of some big library with gargoyls for wardens or something like that.

just curious...




On a personal note, as a player, I hate having meta knowledge. Few things can ruin a game more. Make sure to give the players plenty of opportunities to learn anything that you want them to know for the main campaign - often, told from different points of view, so that hearing it several times will actually still feel new and exciting. It's a cool twist on the Rule of Three. :smallwink:

agree and disagree. the rule of 3, i've read about it. i find it to be garbage. because you shouldn't have to limit your complexity to accomodate players, they don't HAVE to look into your complexity, DMs don't need to be but hurt that their campaign was meaningless to their players. that's why i play open world games WITHOUT a campaign, but a world that lives and breaths and opens up into a campaign the players have crafted themselves.




However, the world needs to be highly accessible to the PCs for the game to be fun (for most styles of play, including what I believe the group in question expects).

The PCs need to have whatever combination of right place, right time, right social status (high or low or outcast or whatever), right connections, right stars in alignment, whatever, to be able to interact with The Plots. For most games, that means affect the outcome of The Plots in meaningful, predictable ways; however, some games are run quite successfully as "and this is how this plot will ***** us over" (I don't recommend this style with this group).

The players / PCs need to be given the details that the players need to become interested in and understand The Plots.

The players need something to make them Invested in the outcome of The Plots.

And, as stated above, the players and the GM should be in sync about how to look at and investigate these plots (And, assuming that The Plots are not way above their pay grade, they should be in sync regarding his to manipulate The Plots). Also, Rule of Three.

So long as the GM is at least as careful in creating the setup for the PCs as he is in creating the world, a game where the GM is running lots of complex background plots should not only be fun, it should be bloody awesome!

Yes, even if - especially if - the PCs never directly touch on half of them.



these are great points, but i disagree on accomodating players as much. i always make sure that there's things for them to do, but the campaign (which i never plan a story for) always revolves around the players decisions. the ONLY thing i plan. is how to weave in some of their backstories together with existing elements.

i spent 1 year building out a world, with cities, kingdoms, towns, villages (lots of roll tables) and some general things about them on about 25 continents, everything else is a blank slate to interact with the players. so when they play they can feel involved because they are. they're helping me to build the world with their actions, backstories, and other fun things they bring to the table.


it's when i interact with them in negative ways (due to the nature of the NPC's i've put out (and there's plenty of positive helpful ones too)) that i start to ask "wait, how can i get you to just trust me that I'M not trying to kill you, the pissed off NPC is..." that i start to wonder how i can improve on this front.

my players have repeatedly said they love how i challenge them and make it real and that my world is crazy detailed. well i'm happy my work paid off. but just want to help people have fun and be happy too obviously.



No, there are clearly other factors involved that added up to create "thus, it ended badly". If you can expound upon those, it might be really helpful for the OP, and to the rest of us.


agreed, please elaborate more. otherwise that's just biased opinion.


One additional advice, and a big one my favorite DM gave me: don't have more than three levels of deception, and that's for big bads (or big, Machiavellian manipulators who are neutral or on your side). For most enemies, just one level or two if you really need it.

That keeps some complexity, paranoia, and other desirable traits (assuming they are desirable for your game), but not a lot.

Some examples from games I've played. Except for the barkeep rogue, they're from oWoD Mage.

Level 0 (but players might think there's deception): Duke Dudeman is the leader of the Order of Mages. He's known to be a jerk, but fair. The party is investigating McGuffin Lore, and he happens to collect that lore as a hobby. He tells you a rival's friend has some parchment with the lore on it. Your team can just scry to read the lore they want, but if they steal it and kill the rival's friend, he'll give you a copy of some lore he already has.
He's being completely honest, but seems like he's building material to blackmail you or screw you over.

Level 1 (one lie): the barkeep rogue seems friendly to you, but is actually hoping you take out the local bad guy so she can take over the drug trade in town. She lies about her motivation, but is otherwise honest.
For most notable NPCs who you want to lie, this is probably what you want.

Level 1 (another example, being two linked lies): the players found the Sword of Not-Burning-in-Sunlight, and think vampires might want to trade for it. They contact their contact, a Nosferatu in the sewers.
The vampire says he could put them in touch with the local Prince, but it'd cost a favor. He wants them to kill some zombies that have set up camp in the sewers.
Actuality: he knows the sword is crazy-good, but if he tries to get it himself he'll lose it. The Prince will reward him for just telling him about it, but why not collect two payments, one from the PCs, one from the Prince? So he lies about how good the sword is and how much trouble it is to get a meeting with the Prince.

Level 2: in the main base, there's a Cult of Ecstasy (mages focusing on pleasure, drugs, sex, etc.) drifter. There's also a man (Tom) & his wife. Tom's wife is killed, and he gets depressed and starts 'medicating' with the drifter. Also, the drifter's best friend starts getting really paranoid, acting strange, etc. The PCs start to fear the drifter's friend is going Nephandi. Through a convoluted plot, they find out he's not, so they start to suspect others.
Tom is eventually outted as evil, and flees. (PCs later kill him in a battle.)
Reality: the Cultist is an evil mage. He wasn't corrupting his best friend, but was messing with his mind to draw suspicion, so folk wouldn't suspect the evil mage as evil. He also killed Tom's wife in order to make Tom ripe for corrupting. Lie 1: not an evil mage. Lie 2: corrupting one dude while appearing to help, while not corrupting another dude while making him seem corrupted
Extra funny: the Cultist was the best mage at scrying through time, so he was asked to look into Tom's wife's death. He didn't see anything because he had Time-shielded himself very well before doing the act.
So you can manage a few of these and keep things coherent.

Level 3 (this was a major plot thing in a Mage game I was in): a mage was killed and his apprentice kidnapped by evil mages. They tortured her, raped her, etc., until the PCs saved her. She came to live at the PCs' base (along with other NPC mages) and was an acquaintance, slowly becoming an ally over the years. Near the end, became a strong ally and even accompanied the party to help defeat Voormas (big bad mage trying to put the world into stasis). Then, after defeating him and taking his McGuffin, she killed the party and freed her dark masters.
Reality: the evil mages killed the mage and apprentice, and had his daughter assume the form of the apprentice plus doing some mojo on her mind to help hide her identity. Then rape/torture her until the PCs 'save' her. It was all part of a Prophecy that would let the evil mages release their dark masters, but to do it they needed two tools, one held by Voormas and one protected from evil. So they manipulated the PCs to find the protected tool, and then the PCs used that to help defeat Voormas.
Then, since the PCs had both tools, she attacked the (very weakened) PCs.
Along the way, she killed most of the allied good mages in town and fed info to the evil mages, keeping tabs on the PCs.
You can see you probably don't want more than 1 person having that much complexity.

Part of the reason for this advice is that you really don't need tons of levels of complexity. It can work well in a heist movie or show (e.g, Ocean's 11) where there's one major thing -- and thus a level 3 lie or two is managable -- but having too many complex ones just confuses things for everyone, players and DM. It makes things less fun, since players can't feel the fun of solving the puzzle, and makes it seem like the DM is screwing with them or stuff is just random.

to a point i agree with the rule of 3, but when the NPCs are pawns themselves is when i find it to be a "yeah yeah whatever" rule.

anyways. this has been great. i'm getting some great ideas from everyones post. and i'm sorry if i sound argumentative, i don't mean to be. i'm just always up to challenging opinions for more rich explanation etc. i really do appreciate everyones comments so far they've been extremely helpful. (even the ones i've "shot down" i still think they have good points)

[MrSandman]

I don't want to have to say "thugs show up with clubs in hand, (guys these guys are here because 2 games ago remember that lady you saved from a bully? These guys are his guild friends)" that's not fun for anyone.

The fun in open world games is exploring it, my players do that. And enjoy it. It's just when things get a little hairy due to stepping on a lot of toes that they got panicked and two players got upset thinking that my actions were unfair. They raised up a town in revolt and the local lord(a warlock unknown to them except now the two players who had got upset and had a "fix your game cuz I'm upset" talk with me) used drugs to force his men's loyalty. So the peasants were slaughtered. Happens. The players didn't like it. But that's what happens when you mess with power. I even let their rumors Dow discord in the forces and rolled percentile to see how many of the men were affected. It was high.


The problem with those two examples is not what happens but how it is presented. I really don't know how you dealt with it, so I can't tell you did wrong or you did right, but I think a couple comments are in order.

No, you shouldn't tell your players "hey, these thugs are attacking you because you messed with the wrong guy." But, hey, the thugs themselves are the perfect people to say exactly that. They could say that and drop the name of the guy, or have something that easily links them to him.

It is the same with the local lord. Were the players aware that there are drugs in the world for that? Did they have someone they could go and ask? Or was it just yet one more of the many things that don't make sense and the players don't even know where to begin investigating from?

Open worlds are a lot of fun if the players have the necessary tools and information to figure out what's going on and interact with it. Otherwise it's just frustrating. Some people will require more knowledge and tools, some others will require less. But it is your task as a game master to ensure that they've got what they need.

Alternatively, the problem might simply be that your players do not enjoy open worlds. In this case, the best option is to talk about expectations and find something that is fun for everyone.

[Satinavian]

If I've made it abundantly clear that they can walk away though and they don't do I just stop being real? Do Npcs just "turn off" or go on pause?
That's a video game. That's not a table top rpg
How has that anything to do with what i wrote ?

[Rhedyn]

That is not cause and effect. I have played in (and run) many successful games where the PCs only touched on the tip of the iceberg of the world. Heck, I expect any one of us only touches the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in this world (Worst. Game. Ever. BTW.).

No, there are clearly other factors involved that added up to create "thus, it ended badly". If you can expound upon those, it might be really helpful for the OP, and to the rest of us.

Sadly, I'm too senile to remember if I ever knew what those other factors were in the complex games that failed. Other than throwing players straight into the deep end, without calibrating investigation Q&A via one-shots, that is.It has more to do with humility and self awareness.

Understanding that, as a DM, you are probably not a professional author, and that your story and plot, without the players or the game helping, is merely passable.

Your players will need your full efforts for the game to be fun. Spending tons of energy on complicated subplots the players never even scratch the surface can trick you in thinking your world is fleshed out when it seems really thin to the players.

Like for the OP:
What was the name of last bar maid they interacted with? She's a more important character to the party than a secret spy master the party will never meet, regardless of how much that spy master may be influencing the party. If the party doesn't know about him, his story and tragic backstory that sent him down the path of evil matters far less than the Bar maid having a leaky roof at home causing her to work extra shifts at the inn and maybe get some big tips from wealthy adventures to pay for little Timmy's cough tonic.

Your efforts should be on things the party interacts with so that your time investment can match the appreciation you get.
Your players wouldn't mind plots coming after them seemingly at random if they felt like your world was fleshed out. Your efforts are invisible, so the players will naturally assume it's all BS.

Much of DMing is creating the illusion that everything has been planned for while not actually planning for everything. Players need to think your world is rich and storied while most of the real work is only on the narrow part of the world the PCs work with.

What was the layout of the last town the PCs visited? Do you even have a general layout? A population estimate? What goods and trade keep that town afloat? Is the Mayor greedy or a good ruler? Does he need help?
These "unimportant" details affect the party more than a list of names the party's invisible tail has because the tail wants to some day take revenge on everyone on the list and he needs to earn his employer's trust to do that, but the employer hates the party because they let his half brother die from a peasant cou that the party helped start because the brother was corrupt but the tail likes the party because that brother was on his list.
None of those details actually matter because the party has no way to interact with them nor will they shape any element of the town they are visiting.

[Yerok LliGcam]

The problem with those two examples is not what happens but how it is presented. I really don't know how you dealt with it, so I can't tell you did wrong or you did right, but I think a couple comments are in order.

No, you shouldn't tell your players "hey, these thugs are attacking you because you messed with the wrong guy." But, hey, the thugs themselves are the perfect people to say exactly that. They could say that and drop the name of the guy, or have something that easily links them to him.

It is the same with the local lord. Were the players aware that there are drugs in the world for that? Did they have someone they could go and ask? Or was it just yet one more of the many things that don't make sense and the players don't even know where to begin investigating from?

Open worlds are a lot of fun if the players have the necessary tools and information to figure out what's going on and interact with it. Otherwise it's just frustrating. Some people will require more knowledge and tools, some others will require less. But it is your task as a game master to ensure that they've got what they need.

Alternatively, the problem might simply be that your players do not enjoy open worlds. In this case, the best option is to talk about expectations and find something that is fun for everyone.

I totally agree i can't just jump on them and not explain why.

the thugs showing up i leave clues on the bodies, or if they're more brutes that talk i have them do so.

the drugs i had them notice that the guards would now and then drink from this drink that made them jerk, (its addictive) and they started to go down that path and learn more.

i dunno... the more i read these comments and realize i'm doing most of these things like lending an aid, i know that i'm not perfect and forget or glaze over it sometimes, and thats my bad for certain, i take full responsibility when players say "what... why is this happening again?" TO A POINT. they need to invest in figuring out why they're doing what they do too.

so i guess in the end the answer to my question is just "work on it together" to be incredibly brief.

but yeah. when players ignore your hints and still want to complain that they don't know about it. do i just stop? i don't think that's a good solution cuz then it all becomes ... i dunno. your world is just dead. which is pretty boring and repetitive if only the players actions affect what's happening in a fictional world.

[MrSandman]

I totally agree i can't just jump on them and not explain why.

the thugs showing up i leave clues on the bodies, or if they're more brutes that talk i have them do so.

the drugs i had them notice that the guards would now and then drink from this drink that made them jerk, (its addictive) and they started to go down that path and learn more.

i dunno... the more i read these comments and realize i'm doing most of these things like lending an aid, i know that i'm not perfect and forget or glaze over it sometimes, and thats my bad for certain, i take full responsibility when players say "what... why is this happening again?" TO A POINT. they need to invest in figuring out why they're doing what they do too.

so i guess in the end the answer to my question is just "work on it together" to be incredibly brief.

but yeah. when players ignore your hints and still want to complain that they don't know about it. do i just stop? i don't think that's a good solution cuz then it all becomes ... i dunno. your world is just dead. which is pretty boring and repetitive if only the players actions affect what's happening in a fictional world.

I get what you mean. And it is a really tough issue, because hints that may seem obvious to me as a GM may just sound absurdly unclear or unimportant to my players. At the same time, if I overload them with too much information, I may just be simply telling them what to do, and then I might just start railroading as well.

It just occurred to me that maybe the problem is that there is too much mystery for your players. I mean, maybe they don't like heavy investigation, and maybe that's what your adventures feel like? It's just a thought, it might not be so. But maybe it would be worth a try to run a couple of sessions where the players don't feel that their role is to investigate what's going on?

By this I don't mean that you should throw away your idea of an open world. There is nothing wrong with the characters being mates with the local earl and having the earl tell them that he's received a letter from a neighbouring lord with whom he was good friends saying that he has had enough and that this means war, and have the earl ask them to go as his emissaries and sort out the mess. This comes from the politics of the world. A third party may have been raiding the neighbouring land under the disguise of the first noble's people. There may be a lot of stuff going on, and a lot of interests clashing with each other, and a lot of things that the characters don't know yet. But at least the players have a clear mission.

[Quertus]

Put yourself in their shoes while planning.

"Prison break" can be a really fun scenario to play in, but first you must be incarcerated. Imagine someone else running that game for you. What are some things you'd want that game to refrain from doing to you?

If the DM keeps throwing successive curveballs to keep you from simply escaping, at what point would it begin to get stale and unfun?

It's kind of the same with hidden plots. How long does ANYONE tolerate getting strung along in the dark?

Now, the other thing to remember is that all players need to accept the journey through the rabbit hole is that you let them come up for air occasionally. What I mean is, if ANY secret plot keeps affecting them personally and directly AND you want them to investigate, throw them a hint that there is something they want to investigate.

You caught that ruffian across the bar/street/etc staring at you. He disappeared the next moment.

*invisible spy sits quietly to eavesdrop on the party* For a fleeting moment, you have the eerie sense that you are being watched.

As you inspect the goblin den, something you can't quite place seems to be amiss.

What I'm suggesting is throw them a line. Give the hint that something might be worth investigating and give it freely. Then be careful that choosing to investigate only provides a clue, not a full plot reveal.

You come to where the ruffian was standing and find a parchment with a drawing of your face dropped in the gutter nearby.

Upon discovering the invisible spy, they use their readied action to teleport to safety.

After investigating the goblin den, it becomes clear that the clutter isn't merely the haphazard lifestyle of the residents; someone else has already searched this place for something.

Basically, give them the absolute certainty that something is going on so they can be on the same page that the fun you intend from the game is discovering what that could be.

You're not tipping your hand. You're tipping that you HAVE a hand that could be tipped.

It depends on the game, and the group. In some groups, the stuff you characterize as being not enough information would, in fact, be too much!

GM: as you walk through the tunnels, you see three Crimson Order goblins as they turn the corner. They level their spears at you.

Player 1: cool, we've faced those before - this should be easy.

Player 2: wait a minute - three of them? Isn't the motto of the Crimson Order "strength in numbers"? We outnumber them, and they aren't running away? You didn't say anything about them being wounded, or covered in blood.

GM: no, they appear fresh.

Player 2: Are they terrified, running from something else? Part of a larger force? Or... {Perception to sense more coming? Sense Motive for... Mind Control?}

GM: You do not hear the sound of more Crimson Order goblins rushing down the halls. There is no light behind the goblins to cast shadows to reveal them that way, nor could you hear them at this distance if they were standing quietly.

GM: Sense Motive reveals no Mind Control, although you do note that they weren't surprised to see you when they rounded the corner, and, despite holding their ground, seem rather anxious to "cross blades" with you.

Player 1: oh, dang, you didn't say that they were surprised, did you? How are they holding their weapons?

GM: ostensibly, prepared for a charge, but in a style designed to leverage their superior strength against an inferior opponent.

Player 1: they don't look any stronger than normal goblins, do they?

GM: no, they don't.

In such a group, where merely presenting inconsistent data is sufficient to arouse suspicion and spur investigation, most of these examples would be overkill, and kill the mood.

Know your group. Provide them an adventure at the level of detail and sophistication that works for them.

[Yerok LliGcam]

How has that anything to do with what i wrote ?

your original response was about gaining party interest in investigating. if they don't investigate and show no interest, then they can walk away. so if they do, what do i do? just say "well... i guess the npc who had their tavern burnt down just... stops caring..."

that doesn't make any sense.

[CantigThimble]

So, while they were raising the rebellion, did none of the townsfolk know about the absolute loyalty of the soldiers? If the army is so willing to attack their own families wouldn't the townsfolk know and be really reluctant to attack the lord head on as a result?

Also, the fact that the soldiers were addicted wouldn't come up unless either the drug was extremely mind numbing to the point where they'd follow orders without question or if they were under threat of having their supply interrupted and were suffering withdrawl.

In the first case, this would be pretty obvious, either to the townsfolk or the players. More so than a random soldier experiencing a slight high when he takes a drink.

In the second, unless the lord knew about the rebellion soon enough to cut supply lines and let withdrawl set in, and the soldiers didn't think they could take his supply for themselves if they turned, then he wouldn't have enough control to get them to slaughter their own people. Even then, the soldiers would have every motivation to subdue their friends and family with minimal bloodshed, do just enough to keep their lord happy and get their fix.

I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just wondering if the problem is less "My players can't handle complexity" and more "This particular plot was poorly designed." If it is the latter, then it may be a lot easier to reach a mutually agreeable solution. It would be better if its a matter of a particular adventure going poorly rather than incompatible styles between GM and group, so it would be wise to check for that possibility first.


I had a similar experience with one of my DMs who had a lot of things going on behind the scenes leading up to big reveals. However, he ended up bending a few things to get the reveal to work the way he wanted it to. When I used an augury spell to ask "Should we go to this place?", where there was an ambush, the response was weal and woe. The reasoning was that if we went there then we would know that someone set an ambush. Afterwards we talked it over and agreed that reasoning was BS and wouldn't happen again. The moral is, don't get your heart too set on people finding things out a certain way. You are liable to unconsciously bend the world so that players will never find that thing out any OTHER way. When that happens, if the players can't read your mind and see what that way is, then they'll miss it and get frustrated.

This is part of the old DMing axiom that you should never design a puzzle with only one solution (or that you have designed all the possible solutions for). Be open to the possibility that players will learn things in ways other than the ones you planned.

[Yerok LliGcam]

Like for the OP:
What was the name of last bar maid they interacted with? She's a more important character to the party than a secret spy master the party will never meet, regardless of how much that spy master may be influencing the party. If the party doesn't know about him, his story and tragic backstory that sent him down the path of evil matters far less than the Bar maid having a leaky roof at home causing her to work extra shifts at the inn and maybe get some big tips from wealthy adventures to pay for little Timmy's cough tonic.

Your efforts should be on things the party interacts with so that your time investment can match the appreciation you get.
Your players wouldn't mind plots coming after them seemingly at random if they felt like your world was fleshed out. Your efforts are invisible, so the players will naturally assume it's all BS.

Much of DMing is creating the illusion that everything has been planned for while not actually planning for everything. Players need to think your world is rich and storied while most of the real work is only on the narrow part of the world the PCs work with.

What was the layout of the last town the PCs visited? Do you even have a general layout? A population estimate? What goods and trade keep that town afloat? Is the Mayor greedy or a good ruler? Does he need help?
These "unimportant" details affect the party more than a list of names the party's invisible tail has because the tail wants to some day take revenge on everyone on the list and he needs to earn his employer's trust to do that, but the employer hates the party because they let his half brother die from a peasant cou that the party helped start because the brother was corrupt but the tail likes the party because that brother was on his list.
None of those details actually matter because the party has no way to interact with them nor will they shape any element of the town they are visiting.


in answer,

that's what i'm doing.

the barmaid example is inconsequential, they've never been to a bar, but they know all about some of these NPC's that they have risen up as their army, they had all sorts, i have a goblin with followers (he's playing a demi-god nilbog type) and a necromancer with an NPC apprentice he calls fledgling. i play out a detailed world because i've DONE that.

you assuming i haven't doesn't help answer my core question.

as far as details, i've drawn maps, i've given them handouts and all sorts of things. the thing my 2 players didn't like was that due to the party setting off a pluthera of sides, and me reacting in a manner that i felt was realistic, caused a HUGE influx of activity from a LOT of angles, so i sent out the hooks, and said "bite one" and they bit 20. so it turned into a lot all at once, and i tried to slow it down and help manage it down to maybe 4 at a time. and that helped. and just the amount of crap going on upset my players, they haven't even left the starting town yet. its been kind of insane. because they dove REALLY deep into my detailed town and that's just what i did:

"Players need to think your world is rich and storied while most of the real work is only on the narrow part of the world the PCs work with."

and because they didn't know every reason why things were happening they had a breakdown and said "i don't get it this isn't fair why are our peasant armies being killed by trained soldiers, why are people chasing us after we've pissed off people?"

in a lot of ways it was "well.. wait and you'll see next time we play."

so again my core question, how can i maintain the element of not having to tell them whats behidn the dm screen completely, i understand you need to give clues through NPC's etc,

but how can i avoid lifting up the DM screen altogether and just giving away all my details and plots, and still help players trust me to not just be screwing with them and that things are happening for a reason?

that's my key problem.

[Yerok LliGcam]

I get what you mean. And it is a really tough issue, because hints that may seem obvious to me as a GM may just sound absurdly unclear or unimportant to my players. At the same time, if I overload them with too much information, I may just be simply telling them what to do, and then I might just start railroading as well.

It just occurred to me that maybe the problem is that there is too much mystery for your players. I mean, maybe they don't like heavy investigation, and maybe that's what your adventures feel like? It's just a thought, it might not be so. But maybe it would be worth a try to run a couple of sessions where the players don't feel that their role is to investigate what's going on?

By this I don't mean that you should throw away your idea of an open world. There is nothing wrong with the characters being mates with the local earl and having the earl tell them that he's received a letter from a neighbouring lord with whom he was good friends saying that he has had enough and that this means war, and have the earl ask them to go as his emissaries and sort out the mess. This comes from the politics of the world. A third party may have been raiding the neighbouring land under the disguise of the first noble's people. There may be a lot of stuff going on, and a lot of interests clashing with each other, and a lot of things that the characters don't know yet. But at least the players have a clear mission.

yeah. i will keep trying to do so. one thing unique about the campaign though i guess i failed to mention at first that didn't seem pertinent at the time, is that this is a "we are the bad guys" campaign. they're playing the evil guys. so the dynamics of regular adventuring don't apply in some sense.

but yeah. i hope that me allowing things to play out without letting to much (i mean at this point they've turned over nearly every stone IN this town anyways) start up again.

[The Jack]

I like to GM a world with NPCs that tell good lies and have their own wants, struggles and needs. You don't need to completely dumb the game down...

But you need moderation, or to strategize how much you put in your deceptions.

The key thing is to interject a lot of straight stories between the machinations. For every grand deception or diabolical screw-over, you should have multiple tasks that can be taken at face value . These can be apart of A or B plots.

Another thing is that, even when characters lie to the players, they shouldn't always be screwing the players over, and they should often reward the players even when they do lie or cheat. Do these things and it'll help your players agree to whatever you say.

You also need to consider that you're not always as smart as you think you are, and your players can very happily both exceed and excessively fail your expectations.

[Pleh]

It depends on the game, and the group. In some groups, the stuff you characterize as being not enough information would, in fact, be too much!

Know your group. Provide them an adventure at the level of detail and sophistication that works for them.

I was going based on the OP saying the players wanted to know what's going on without outright spoilers.

Sometimes a more specific answer is more helpful than the general one.

[Yerok LliGcam]

So, while they were raising the rebellion, did none of the townsfolk know about the absolute loyalty of the soldiers? If the army is so willing to attack their own families wouldn't the townsfolk know and be really reluctant to attack the lord head on as a result?

Also, the fact that the soldiers were addicted wouldn't come up unless either the drug was extremely mind numbing to the point where they'd follow orders without question or if they were under threat of having their supply interrupted and were suffering withdrawl.

In the first case, this would be pretty obvious, either to the townsfolk or the players. More so than a random soldier experiencing a slight high when he takes a drink.

In the second, unless the lord knew about the rebellion soon enough to cut supply lines and let withdrawl set in, and the soldiers didn't think they could take his supply for themselves if they turned, then he wouldn't have enough control to get them to slaughter their own people. Even then, the soldiers would have every motivation to subdue their friends and family with minimal bloodshed, do just enough to keep their lord happy and get their fix.

I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just wondering if the problem is less "My players can't handle complexity" and more "This particular plot was poorly designed." If it is the latter, then it may be a lot easier to reach a mutually agreeable solution. It would be better if its a matter of a particular adventure going poorly rather than incompatible styles between GM and group, so it would be wise to check for that possibility first.


I had a similar experience with one of my DMs who had a lot of things going on behind the scenes leading up to big reveals. However, he ended up bending a few things to get the reveal to work the way he wanted it to. When I used an augury spell to ask "Should we go to this place?", where there was an ambush, the response was weal and woe. The reasoning was that if we went there then we would know that someone set an ambush. Afterwards we talked it over and agreed that reasoning was BS and wouldn't happen again. The moral is, don't get your heart too set on people finding things out a certain way. You are liable to unconsciously bend the world so that players will never find that thing out any OTHER way. When that happens, if the players can't read your mind and see what that way is, then they'll miss it and get frustrated.

This is part of the old DMing axiom that you should never design a puzzle with only one solution (or that you have designed all the possible solutions for). Be open to the possibility that players will learn things in ways other than the ones you planned.

no your points are well noted, i did have the rumors our bard spread cause fear in the lords ranks and he lost 3 battalions who were of the lesser caste in the city, the others more loyal were younger men without families or who were power hungry etc. but the bards goblin army and the rogues assassins burnt all of them down in two buildings they snuck into and ambushed the peasantry militia. it was quite tragic and very cool story telling. fun that a vampire joined our monster party at that time so i had him start IN the basement of one of these buildings in his coffin. fun fun. i had planned out every little thing and knew that there'd be discord in the ranks. our Bard (he's a nilbog- this is 5e D&D) can possess bodies as a homebrew and he possessed some guards and acted out to really sell the fact that the lord was corrupt. it was actually really good.

the thing that i didn't tell the players, was that the rumors caused such discord UNTIL it started happening, they were rushed one morning, and 3 of the 5 groups were abandoning the city and leaving to find better lives and get away from the madness. so it's all really started working out, its just that when they were in the thick of the "WHAT IS HAPPENING!?!" that the 2 players got upset enough that they felt they needed to talk, which i was totally okay with. it just was a discussion that was very much them saying "you should change" and me thinknig "you guys have no idea that next game about 3/4ths of the complaints will all make sense due to what's happened..."

i just want to avoid the players having a breakdown in the future and feeling that they need to come talk to me. building DM trust. i guess maybe it's only possible sometimes when your players understand that there's a method and reason for the madness after experiencing an episode of it. and then during the next one they can say "okay... what's he planning THIS time...." instead of "why!? this isn't fun! i worked hard to get this militia up and going and you just slaughter half of em with 2 battalions of guards!?! (crossbows in the windows, it was pretty good military strategy on the lords part, but very tragic. which isn't a bad thing i don't think.


as far as showing hints that these guards were being supplied addictive mind control stuffs, i alluded to it with strange behavior at the start, they rolled it up to guards being pricks and racist (like no one is playing a human, again this is a monster let's be evil campaign where i have a drow, an undead, a shadow, a nilbog goblin, and a tabaxi vampire. its... interesting - first time running a monster bad guy game) but anyways its been hard since they didn't check it out further and would just kill guards and escape and run. so i guess in that respect they're PLAYING the part of the evil bad guys and SHOULD expect to be chased around by angry people and even odd adventuring NPC crews hired to chase em down...

maybe they're just learning about being the bad guys... now that i think about it...

[Darth Tom]

the thing my 2 players didn't like was that due to the party setting off a pluthera of sides, and me reacting in a manner that i felt was realistic, caused a HUGE influx of activity from a LOT of angles, so i sent out the hooks, and said "bite one" and they bit 20. so it turned into a lot all at once, and i tried to slow it down and help manage it down to maybe 4 at a time. and that helped. and just the amount of crap going on upset my players, they haven't even left the starting town yet. its been kind of insane. because they dove REALLY deep into my detailed town

I understand where you're coming from. I chose a similar style when I started DMing. I thought, "I don't want a railroad, single plot with just one way of solving it. I'll have a whole bunch of stuff and latch onto anything they try to investigate even if it means making it up as I go along".

I don't think that's wrong per se. My first attempt was DMing a Star Wars campaign where I let the players make any character they wanted (a Mandalorian and renegade Chiss), asked them to come up with one thing that their character is annoyed by (the Mandalorian's armour had been stolen and the Chiss felt his entire culture had been abused by the Empire despite having only met one), stuck them in a cantina and let them loose. By the end of one game session they had a lead on the thief, trashed the cantina, won passage on a ship in Sabacc, run from a shootout with Stormtroopers, and were now hurtling into the Galaxy in the company of a notorious pirate except they didn't know that bit yet. We had weekly hijinks for the next few months and good times were had by all.

This game certainly ran on Rule of Cool. I let them get away with anything once because it would be fun and awesome. I used in-universe realism to determine what consequences might happen. These included several crime lords, Imperial Moffs, many, many planetary governments and for a while a cadre of the Rebel Alliance after them. I'm happy for my games to be joint imagination: I provide the world and they find fun things to do in it.

The thing is, that what you describe as the problem above is kind of in your control. Yes they jumped on a ton of triggers. Yes that means a whole bunch of people are now involved. But only one person gets to choose how and when they do so. You.

*****

In my mind, the DM is responsible for pacing and plots. Say they have set off a bunch of triggers. It's entirely realistic that one group takes time to learn about it, another combs the surrounding villages and is only met by chance, a third has more important things going on... but this is only to justify it to yourself. As far as they need to know, they poked around and suddenly things are happening.

They may not have realised that EVERYTHING had consequences. Maybe throw 3 things at them, not 20. By all means have hints that even more will happen - get them nice and paranoid.

[Yerok LliGcam]

I like to GM a world with NPCs that tell good lies and have their own wants, struggles and needs. You don't need to completely dumb the game down...

But you need moderation, or to strategize how much you put in your deceptions.

The key thing is to interject a lot of straight stories between the machinations. For every grand deception or diabolical screw-over, you should have multiple tasks that can be taken at face value . These can be apart of A or B plots.

Another thing is that, even when characters lie to the players, they shouldn't always be screwing the players over, and they should often reward the players even when they do lie or cheat. Do these things and it'll help your players agree to whatever you say.

You also need to consider that you're not always as smart as you think you are, and your players can very happily both exceed and excessively fail your expectations.

true. wise words. thanks. this is quality advice.

[Yerok LliGcam]

I understand where you're coming from. I chose a similar style when I started DMing. I thought, "I don't want a railroad, single plot with just one way of solving it. I'll have a whole bunch of stuff and latch onto anything they try to investigate even if it means making it up as I go along".

I don't think that's wrong per se. My first attempt was DMing a Star Wars campaign where I let the players make any character they wanted (a Mandalorian and renegade Chiss), asked them to come up with one thing that their character is annoyed by (the Mandalorian's armour had been stolen and the Chiss felt his entire culture had been abused by the Empire despite having only met one), stuck them in a cantina and let them loose. By the end of one game session they had a lead on the thief, trashed the cantina, won passage on a ship in Sabacc, run from a shootout with Stormtroopers, and were now hurtling into the Galaxy in the company of a notorious pirate except they didn't know that bit yet. We had weekly hijinks for the next few months and good times were had by all.

This game certainly ran on Rule of Cool. I let them get away with anything once because it would be fun and awesome. I used in-universe realism to determine what consequences might happen. These included several crime lords, Imperial Moffs, many, many planetary governments and for a while a cadre of the Rebel Alliance after them. I'm happy for my games to be joint imagination: I provide the world and they find fun things to do in it.

The thing is, that what you describe as the problem above is kind of in your control. Yes they jumped on a ton of triggers. Yes that means a whole bunch of people are now involved. But only one person gets to choose how and when they do so. You.

*****

In my mind, the DM is responsible for pacing and plots. Say they have set off a bunch of triggers. It's entirely realistic that one group takes time to learn about it, another combs the surrounding villages and is only met by chance, a third has more important things going on... but this is only to justify it to yourself. As far as they need to know, they poked around and suddenly things are happening.

They may not have realised that EVERYTHING had consequences. Maybe throw 3 things at them, not 20. By all means have hints that even more will happen - get them nice and paranoid.

yeah. your point is a great one. i did struggle with pacing. as its a work campaign we have a lot of "so and so can't make it today" due to meetings etc. i mean 1 hour at lunch you know?

but yeah. pacing will definitly be my biggest take away from this campaign. it's been amazingly fun. we've laughed, we've cried, and there's been fun had by all and some games we walk away frusrtated and others its super hilarious. but yeah... i guess i need to remember that and not lose sight of the "this can happen... but it can happen after this other thing gets sorted out"

thanks.

[Darth Ultron]

Much of DMing is creating the illusion that everything has been planned for while not actually planning for everything. Players need to think your world is rich and storied while most of the real work is only on the narrow part of the world the PCs work with.


This is a good example of a casual DM: The give the illusion of putting in effort and doing work, but really do very little.


but yeah. when players ignore your hints and still want to complain that they don't know about it. do i just stop? i don't think that's a good solution cuz then it all becomes ... i dunno. your world is just dead. which is pretty boring and repetitive if only the players actions affect what's happening in a fictional world.

To have players that really invest the time and effort to really dig into the details is rare. In general, most players, will only really go for slight less then half of everything. It does leave a lot the players will never know, but that is normal. And most people are used to 'easy' fiction: the kind you see in most movies and TV shows. Things are very simple, very direct and everyone knows everything.


I get what you mean. And it is a really tough issue, because hints that may seem obvious to me as a GM may just sound absurdly unclear or unimportant to my players. At the same time, if I overload them with too much information, I may just be simply telling them what to do, and then I might just start railroading as well.

Technically if you just give them information, and they act on it, then it's not railroading.



but how can i avoid lifting up the DM screen altogether and just giving away all my details and plots, and still help players trust me to not just be screwing with them and that things are happening for a reason?

that's my key problem.

This just comes down to having the players trust you unconditionally. There simply is no way for them to know everything and still play the game as players. They just have to trust the DM.

If the players want to second guess the DM, or even just go full against the DM and be hostile...well, there simply is nothing to be done. After all, if you stop the game every couple of minutes to explain everything to the players, you won't even be playing the game. And once the players cross the line to being hostile jerks, there is nothing the DM can say anyway. Even if the DM says, and it is the truth, that the goblin bandits attacked because they are greedy....the hostile jerk player will still say ''nut aw, the DM just wanted to attacks us!"

[Satinavian]

your original response was about gaining party interest in investigating. if they don't investigate and show no interest, then they can walk away. so if they do, what do i do? just say "well... i guess the npc who had their tavern burnt down just... stops caring..."

that doesn't make any sense.No, my original post was about not hiding all the interesting stuff going on in your world in the first place. Your game/your world should be interesting and engaging even prior to further investigation.

I would even go so far that investigation only works if players are already interested in the world/the NPCs or significantly involved in the not hidden conflicts and power struggles.


But i don't play in your group. I only have your posts and originally only the first one to judge. And it seemed your overapplication of secrecy was a problem that led to your players having no clue what happened around them and the world seemingly made no sese.
Maybe it is nother problem you have. But a serious problem it is, otherwise you wouldn't have all your players complaining or being absent. Dispite all your insistence on only portraying a believable world, you seem to have not managed to portray a world your players find believable.


But if you just came here to ask how to get your players to just suck it up and wait patiently for the big reveal because they trust you it comes, well ... there is no recipie for that.

[MrSandman]

Technically if you just give them information, and they act on it, then it's not railroading.



I never said that giving information is railroading. I said that if you give them so much information that you perfectly lie the path they need follow in front of them, you might as well start railroading them.
There's a point where, if you give too much information about what is happening and how to overcome it, you're basically lying out the best (maybe) course of action to follow.

[Quertus]

agreed, please elaborate more. otherwise that's just biased opinion.

Being me, I'm going to most object to the part where you say that you agree with me. :smallamused:

See, the thing is, despite how it probably wouldn't be terribly productive to do so, you could probably call most any statement made in this thread "biased opinion", and be more accurate.

The statement you were responding to was simply science and logic. By observing even a single (let alone many!) instance of X and not Y, it proves that "X therefore Y" is not true.

So, how did you perceive my statement to say something different than that, or what were you trying to say related to that, to produce such a seemingly misplaced comment?

I figure it might be wisest to see your response to this before attempting to address the rest of your thorough response.

Myself, I don't consider that babying you - I consider it "establishing a dialog". Understanding where you're coming from. That kind of thing.


I was going based on the OP saying the players wanted to know what's going on without outright spoilers.

Sometimes a more specific answer is more helpful than the general one.

Ah. Fair enough. Over-generalization does seem to be one of my many flaws. :smallredface:


I never said that giving information is railroading. I said that if you give them so much information that you perfectly lie the path they need follow in front of them, you might as well start railroading them.
There's a point where, if you give too much information about what is happening and how to overcome it, you're basically lying out the best (maybe) course of action to follow.

Equating "giving information" with "railroading"? That's novel.

I suspect it depends a bit in the delivery. I suppose I can see cases where it would come across that way, but... I don't think that making uninformed decisions is exactly the hallmark of Sandboxy games.

[Pleh]

Equating "giving information" with "railroading"? That's novel.

I suspect it depends a bit in the delivery.

Very much so.

Players rely on information dispensed from the DM. If a DM only provides a single trail of information (or only a single trail that ends in a meaningful progression), it's become a railroad.

[Satinavian]

It is still not a railroad, just a very linear adventure. There is only one path worth following, but you could leave it if you wish which also means leaving the plot and the area the GM prepared. But there is no force keeping you on the path.

[Pleh]

It is still not a railroad, just a very linear adventure. There is only one path worth following, but you could leave it if you wish which also means leaving the plot and the area the GM prepared. But there is no force keeping you on the path.

Maybe. You're right that more is needed to constitute a railroad, but perhaps not as much more as you think.

What I meant by, "only one path worth following" was essentially an "endless desert" of information scenario.

"You see an oasis on the horizon."

"Probably a trap. We search in a different direction."

"You travel for hours and cannot distinguish any meaningful progress."

Information railroads employ negative space barriers. Nothing prevents you from traversing the barrier space, but by definition, there is nothing to be gained there, either.

Basically, the difference between linear info dispensation and an information railroad is if the DM is willing to cooperate with the creation of a new trail if the players abandon the first.

The other way to do information railroads is the "all roads lead to rome" where any way you try to explore off the path *just happens* to lead to the same place anyway.

[VincentTakeda]

Schroedingers' railroad?

[Beleriphon]

Very much this. Your players have spoken; they don't want such a complicated web of intrigue.

If you're going for layers of intrigue they can't be more complicated than a Batman comic. So you can have gangs, controlled by a mob boss, controlled by a cult, controlled by R'as al-Ghul. At most you want to make plots four layers deep, and the first two should be relatively obvious that they are connected. The reason I'd max it out at four layers is because otherwise it takes to long, and like a comic book you only get to see the story periodically, rather than being able to read it all at once (in theory) like a novel.

To borrow the example for the Duke von Killstabber from up thread. The players stop a slave trader, who is employed Duke von Killstabber controls. But its through Baron Swordguy who actually pays Jane Evil-Slaver and her gang. Connecting the Baron and Jane should be pretty straight forward if the players make any effort, a letter, one of the baron's men, something obvious. Connecting the Baron and the Duke however should be harder and take some real effort and investigations, and may not come until later as a "big reveal".

You can have those complicated webs, but they shouldn't be connected except at the outermost layers, otherwise players have to start dealing with flow charts and mapping things out, and remembering a dozen different facts that quite frankly are probably pretty low on the things they need to think about day to day. Even if they think its really important unless they happen to be investigative journalists they probably aren't very good at it either.

[icefractal]

Keep in mind also - IRL, people receive vast quantities of sensory input, only some of which is handled by the conscious mind. In a TTRPG, this is reduced down to one narrow channel, and an often imprecise one to boot.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that players often require information to be much more blatant than it would realistically be before they can receive it through the limited and imperfect channel available.

For that matter, even professional investigators have plenty of unsolved cases. You're not often going to get a satisfying outcome by pure chance.