Getting players to recognize plot items

[Pauly]

During discussion on another thread it there was debate as to whether or not a particular item was a plot item, or a reward to be sold.

In my experience as a GM I’ve never had problems with players recognize what items are plot items. I subscribe to the Chekov’s gun method of descriptions i.e. Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

When I give the players a plot item, they get a description of the object, maybe an NPC gives a message about the object. I don’t need to go overboard with OTT descriptions of the object glowing with power or covered with ancient runes, a thorough description is all what’s necessary. When I give players a reward I generally don’t waste their time with descriptions of objects and just give them the equivalent cash straight up. If they do get an object as a reward the description is “you get an [X] worth [N] gp.”.

When my players decide to sell a plot item they do so knowing it is a plot item and their reason for selling can be: not wanting to follow that thread; severe cash crunch; had the item for a long time and it appears irrelevant now.

I’ve never had to do the Bioware thing of telling players “despite being an item you normally trade this item cannot be sold”.

I break plot objects into 3 main categories.
1) Quest items - items the party needs to continue their quest.
2) Maguffins - items being chased after by more than one group.
3) Chekov’s guns - items whose use is uncertain now but will be useful in the future.
I see items (1) and (2) being less likely to be ignored/sold by players.

[Batcathat]

I don't think I've really felt the need to have players specifically recognize plot items. If they're supposed to be important to the characters, there's presumably an in-universe reason for it, without the need to telegraph to the players that it's a McGuffin. I suppose there could be problems, like Bilbo selling the One Ring for a bit of cash or whatever, but I still think I prefer it to the alternatives.

[Yora]

I think if this ever becomes an issue, it indicated a flaw in the adventure or campaign setup.

Generally, I think in a good campaign, no thing, person, or action should be absolutely necessary to continue playing the game. But in situations where it really is required, there isn't much point to hide that metagame information from the players. If something is part of a scripted plot, be totally obvious about it by having an NPC explain to the players what it is about and what they have to do with it.

[icefractal]

This hasn't really come up, because I mostly run sandbox / semi-sandbox games. So while they could essentially close off a quest this way, they could also close it off by just ... not pursuing it. Which happens anyway, because I try to provide more potential quests than the ones they pursue (travel time helps with this; it's not necessary to flesh out a quest fully until they actually commit to it).

Actually fairly recently, the party did trade away an item that they would have needed to pursue a certain goal. But it wasn't by mistake, they had other priorities which meant in practice they wouldn't pursue it for quite a while if ever, and what they got in exchange was helpful for those other goals.

[False God]

I don't worry about it because almost everything has meaning. I rarely drop "mundane but magical loot" and any "Ye Olde Magic Shop" only sells unique artifacts which all have threads tied to them. Any magical weapon, even a simple +1, was usually commissioned by someone, somewhere, and those elements are still tied to it. Even completely mundane loot often has threads tied to it. The bandits weapons are all stolen, and their return could fetch quite a pretty penny. The bandits are forging all their own weapons, this indicates they operate at a much higher level than usual, and may be in cooperation with others. The ragged and town outfits adorning the bodies of the bandits are all tied to some noble lord and indicate the lands from whence they came, and the (often greater) troubles that plague them.

[Quertus]

Yeah, I’m… not seeing the draw. If Bilbo sells The One Ring, then he’ll get to keep his sanity and retire happily, and, if the GM is dead set on railroading a “Return of the Ring” 👑 💍 plot line, they’ll just have to find some other hook to get Gandalf, the only returning character (and he’s not even a PC, he’s a DMPC afaict) involved.

If it’s in character for the character(s) to sell the plot item, then… they do so? And then you get to tell their story (which may involve (Gandalf) hunting down that Ring they sold) rather than effectively reading through the GM’s single author fiction.

Or you could play a better system, like 2e D&D, where there isn’t an expectation that magical items are bought and sold. :smallbiggrin:

(Yes, the necklace in question in the spawning thread wasn’t magical. I just wanted to plug 2e, and remind people that there’s multiple approaches to this problem, and “changing what’s ‘in character’ by changing the setup / system / setting” is an option that I didn’t want overlooked.)

[Thrudd]

If an item is needed to "complete a quest", or is something everyone is looking for, then it should be a thing the players are aware of and already looking for, because they know it's the thing they need. They aren't going to sell it or lose it if they want to complete the quest.

If there is a special item that nobody in-character knows is special, there's no reason the players will treat it as special and you shouldn't expect them to. If they sell a thing that you decided was supposed to be special, and they find out later that it was special and they want it back...then they can try to find the person they sold it to and see if they can get it back. Games like this can handle scenarios like that...players can have their characters go places, talk to people, and do things other than "the quest". They can delay the quest and go on diversions. They can handle complications that arise in ways you don't expect or plan for. You can introduce new ways for them to accomplish their tasks or invent new sub-quests to get them back on track of the "main quest". That's how these games work.

If you are running a TTRPG like it's a video game, and your players expect it to work like a video game, then I'd think there should be no conflict using video game methods to make sure the quest items are recognized as such - if you're already telling them "this is the main quest you need to follow, go over here, you can't do anything else", you might as well also tell them "this is the thing you need, keep it until it's used in the quest- no, you can't sell it and then steal it back".
FYI- I don't recommend running a TTRPG that way, in general, unless it's a one-shot.

[DigoDragon]

I think if this ever becomes an issue, it indicated a flaw in the adventure or campaign setup.

I would tend to agree here.

In one campaign I ran decades ago, the party acquired a decently powerful sword. However, because holding the sword can cause the wielder damage, they sold it off. The sword was a plot item as it's magical properties acted as a key to open up a tomb elsewhere, but where I went wrong was not being more up front with the legend about the sword. They didn't go looking for the legend, so of course they only saw a powerful sword to sell for a lot of money.

Since then, if there's a plot item in my campaign, I make sure that the players hear about the rumors/legends of it before they find it.

As for that old campaign, the work around was befriending a kobold who was really good at making explosives for opening up stubborn tomb doors. :smallbiggrin:

[Batcathat]

As for that old campaign, the work around was befriending a kobold who was really good at making explosives for opening up stubborn tomb doors. :smallbiggrin:

This is entirely off topic, but I just want to state my approval of the fact that this was an option. Far too many fictional tombs and similar places have the protagonists jumping through all sorts of hoops to open them up, completely ignoring that they have the technology/magic/superpowers to just force their way through. (Yes, there can be justifications for that, but there usually isn't).

[kyoryu]

Rephrased and slightly generalized, it sounds like what you want is:

1. The players to make certain choices (like "don't sell this item")
2. Not to communicate what those choices are in any overt way
3. Not to communicate those choices on a meta-level

This.... isn't really a good plan. It might work some of the time, but it's super failure-prone. And frankly, I think it leads into a game of "guess what the GM wants".

I'd say for a given decision, one of the following should be true:

1. It doesn't matter what choice the players make (they can sell/destroy the plot item)
2. You communicate the "right" choice in game, explicitly ("this pendant has a symbol of a coat of arms, and something on the back saying that it will open a vault of great power")
3. You communicate the "right" choice out of game, explicitly, and get agreement ("hey, so, you know this is Strahd, and this pendant talks about being a key for destroying a vampire. Probably best to keep it.")
4. You don't present the choice (for the item, it either can't be destroyed, is cursed so it always comes back, etc, or they don't get it at a point where they lack sufficient context for point #2)

My personal preference is #1. Variants of this include "don't put an NPC in a scene if you're not okay with them dying".

[Vahnavoi]

I don't acknowledge this difference to begin with in my tabletop games - anything that you could sell for money tends to have its own use and importance, often obviously so, while things that appear worthless may end up important any way due to imaginative use.

More to the point: sold objects don't disappear from the game world. If players realize they made a mistake trading some item for money, they usually can backtrack and buy that item back. If players don't realize it, well boo hoo. I as a game master don't angst over players failing - if I as a game master don't make the use and importance of an item clear as day, it's because figuring that out is part of a puzzle, and it's not my job to ensure players solve each one.

[Rynjin]

When I do loot tables I generally just straight up put a section that says "Quest Items" for very important **** when I hand to to my players lol.

Don't ever expect anyone else to automatically ascribe the same significance to something as you do, in RPGs or otherwise.

I've noticed over the years that the Venn diagram of people who complain about their players missing stuff on the boards and the people who are dead set on retaining the "mysterious nature" of being a GM is pretty much a circle.

Ponder the easiest way to fix the issue.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I’m… not seeing the draw. If Bilbo sells The One Ring, then he’ll get to keep his sanity and retire happily, and, if the GM is dead set on railroading a “Return of the Ring” 👑 💍 plot line, they’ll just have to find some other hook to get Gandalf, the only returning character (and he’s not even a PC, he’s a DMPC afaict) involved.

Doesn't the ring have a degree of sentience/agency? Having it find its way back towards one of the main cast who has a chance of putting it on doesn't have to be "railroading," it could in fact be the DM RPing it accurately.

[Pauly]

Rephrased and slightly generalized, it sounds like what you want is:

1. The players to make certain choices (like "don't sell this item")
2. Not to communicate what those choices are in any overt way
3. Not to communicate those choices on a meta-level

This.... isn't really a good plan. It might work some of the time, but it's super failure-prone. And frankly, I think it leads into a game of "guess what the GM wants".
.

No. I want my players to recognize what are and what are not plot items. As I said in my initial post I use the Chekov’s gun method (i.e. giving important items a proper description and not giving details on unimportant items).

In my games my players recognize what are and what are not plot items. It’s just that in comments from other threads other groups seem to have a significantly more difficult time of it. It may be that my group is fairly mature and is aware of storytelling conventions.

I don’t have a problem with players selling items, not picking them up or otherwise disposing of them as long as they are doing so in the knowledge that it’s a plot item.

Useful items (eg the rope Galadriel gave to Sam) are gone if the party dispose of it.
Needed items (eg The One Ring) have ways of either being recovered or a workaround implemented.



More to the point: sold objects don't disappear from the game world. If players realize they made a mistake trading some item for money, they usually can backtrack and buy that item back.

Stores don’t exist to buy things. I have a fair amount of stock turnover in stores in my games. But that’s really just personal preference on how to run shops and there are pros and cons of fixed inventory -v- random inventory shopping.



The only time I really had my Chekov’s gun misfire was when a party defeated a nest of swamp trolls. In their den they found everything rusty and moldy and in the corner was a well with a shiny metal chain going down into the well. The party investigated the hell out of the well and found nothing and then moved on. They didn’t inspect the chain which was 200 feet of mithril chain, which was the treasure for the mission. Now I’m more experienced as a GM, if they missed the chain and investigated the well I’d give them something at the bottom of the well, not as much as the mithril chain, but I wouldn’t let the, walk out empty handed.

[Telok]

Never had issues with players not recognizing plot items. Did have an issue once when one of them dumped 1/3rd of the once and possibly most powerful magic sword in the setting into lava.

They didn't know what to do with it because they hadn't asked anyone except one cranky old exiled sorcerer and it had been four or five sessions of them traveling & exploring wilderness instead of buying a map, hiring a guide, or traveling with a caravan. Then they got thier asses handed to them by demons in a marked on the maps "beware of demons" ancient obsidian super-fortress. The one of two survivors of the almost tpk chucked the hilt of Demonslayer (yup, that was the sword's name and about 300% op when used on demons) into lava on the way out because... and I remember this well... "I don't know what to do with it and it didn't help us"... considering it had sat ignored in his backpack the entire time...

Turned out ok though. The big demon on the other side of the reality leak forced a smart spell caster demon through and the sword chunk got used to start wedging the leak open more & more.

[Vahnavoi]

Stores don’t exist to buy things. I have a fair amount of stock turnover in stores in my games. But that’s really just personal preference on how to run shops and there are pros and cons of fixed inventory -v- random inventory shopping.


If player characters sell something to a store and that store sells it to someone else, the same point applies: the object is still exists. The players can backtrack it to the store and then trace it to the new buyer. The players may have created extra work for themselves, but that's not an issue to me as a game master - making game out of the process of getting the lost object back is easy to make a game of.

A lot of time player characters aren't even selling to a store, they effectively are the store selling their goods to some customer. If they, say, sell a magical painting to a local noble, chances are they will find it hanging on the wall of that noble if they need it back. So on and so forth.

As far as destroying ancient artefacts because they don't seem useful in the moment, like Telok's example of throwing piece of a sword into magma... if players haven't played enough games to know better, it's squarely on them. :smallamused:

[Eldan]

I'd say never have a single point of failure for your campaign. Because there's a pretty good chance your players will find it at some point.

If necessary, be blunt. Tell them to hang on it to it.

Alternatively: make it a side plot!

"You have sold the Ring of power to the merchant from Belfalas. His caravan has already move on. Find him again, before the orc raiders do!"

There. Exciting chase mission.

[kyoryu]

No. I want my players to recognize what are and what are not plot items. As I said in my initial post I use the Chekov’s gun method (i.e. giving important items a proper description and not giving details on unimportant items).

In my games my players recognize what are and what are not plot items. It’s just that in comments from other threads other groups seem to have a significantly more difficult time of it. It may be that my group is fairly mature and is aware of storytelling conventions.

I don’t have a problem with players selling items, not picking them up or otherwise disposing of them as long as they are doing so in the knowledge that it’s a plot item.


Yeah, but why would they sell/drop/etc. a plot item?

So by "recognizing that it's a plot item", there's still some level of expectation of treating it differently. You're handling that with the "meta" approach, effectively - important items get descriptions, others don't. This works for your table, but it's definitely the approach of "telling them it's important without having an in-game explanation for the importance".

I don't know your approach would work for me (I like describing things), but it works for you and your table. And it sounds like it's a pretty clear and unambiguous signal, so that works, too.


I've noticed over the years that the Venn diagram of people who complain about their players missing stuff on the boards and the people who are dead set on retaining the "mysterious nature" of being a GM is pretty much a circle.

100%. I've evolved in my thinking to prefer the tension of "here's info, what are you gonna do about it?" vs "something is happening and you have no info". i think it's more interesting, puts more interesting decisions on the players, tends to keep interest as you avoid the "why do I care" questions, and frankly just leads to fewer misunderstandings.

[Alcore]

just tell them! That's how...


Rephrased and slightly generalized, it sounds like what you want is:

1. The players to make certain choices (like "don't sell this item")
2. Not to communicate what those choices are in any overt way
3. Not to communicate those choices on a meta-level

This.... isn't really a good plan. It might work some of the time, but it's super failure-prone. And frankly, I think it leads into a game of "guess what the GM wants".I don't know who is running the game of that player from the vaguely reference thread but I balk at using the word "you" here. The Opening Poster never even said what they wanted.

I do like this passage as it is something that we can expect an inexperienced GM to do. Or a railroady one.


While there is a large spectrum I feel I can devide it between two ways of getting the point accross;

1. A linear adventure

2. A sandbow


Say if I am running a game in Middle Earth....

In a linear; just tell them.

"you find the one ring of power, an important mcguffin."
"You find a small gold ring after [character] casually inspects it you discover it is The One Ring." For a more subtle IC version. Both are valid and helps advance the plot.

In a sandbox? Things become tricky as they have a choice. Or should have one

"You find a small gold ring on the ground. Despite its location is in pristine condition as if just forged." Done. Now the party can...

1. Sell it - a questline they haven't started is one they haven't invested in enough. Send in more hooks... have other heroes kill the dark lord off screen.

2. Research it. It kills me how often they never use their knowledge skills; how often do they even try? Still if they roll one option they unlock will be to stuff it in a fire and read the script. Other options will be other magical rings that it may in fact be instead. (if they try to pursue a dragon's golden ring of avaricious first it tells me they want dragons; dragonward we go!)

3. Wear it. Nothing says IMPORTANT like a giant flaming eye attacking you...

4. Stuff it in a box to be forgotten... enough said.


So many ways the problem can be avoided. Use one. Fine more. Anything.

[Thrudd]

"Chekov's Gun" being a concept of theater and other scripted performing arts, I find it is not exactly applicable to the RPG environment unless it is also rather "scripted"- a state many people on this forum, at least, are trying to avoid. So the concept of having "plot items" introduced that the players don't know anything about, and won't become relevant for some time in the future, is one that doesn't really work in a game where a script isn't being followed. The players are meant to be acting as though they are reacting, in real time, to the things their characters are experiencing, making decisions only based on what their characters know in any given moment. Basing decisions solely on meta-game knowledge like: "the DM described that thing in detail, so it must be important", is something many would try to discourage. Now, if the thing was found in a special place and NPCs were treating it as something special - well now the players have some in-character reason to suspect it's important for some reason. But in a vacuum, only offering differing amounts of description really shouldn't be expected to affect players' choices.

Also, as everyone else has said, designing an adventure with a failure point like that is just a bad idea. The possibility that characters, acting reasonably according to in-world logic, might make a wrong choice and break your campaign, means you haven't given them enough information. If there's an important plot item, the characters need to know it exists before they find it, especially if it's a game that also has treasure that can be sold for cash, and cash that can be used to buy useful game items.

[Pauly]

"Chekov's Gun" being a concept of theater and other scripted performing arts, I find it is not exactly applicable to the RPG environment unless it is also rather "scripted"- a state many people on this forum, at least, are trying to avoid. So the concept of having "plot items" introduced that the players don't know anything about, and won't become relevant for some time in the future, is one that doesn't really work in a game where a script isn't being followed. The players are meant to be acting as though they are reacting, in real time, to the things their characters are experiencing, making decisions only based on what their characters know in any given moment. Basing decisions solely on meta-game knowledge like: "the DM described that thing in detail, so it must be important", is something many would try to discourage. Now, if the thing was found in a special place and NPCs were treating it as something special - well now the players have some in-character reason to suspect it's important for some reason. But in a vacuum, only offering differing amounts of description really shouldn't be expected to affect players' choices.


Chekov’s gun is a bandwidth issue. You have a limited amount of time and to keep the story moving at a reasonable pace so you pick what’s important and focus on that and let the background be out of focus. You don’t describe every guard and hanger on in the king’s retinue, but you sure as hell describe the king and his key advisors. Anytime you skip over describing every guard but focus on the king you are using Chekov’s gun.

It doesn’t matter if its a sandbox or a railway. Sandboxes are made up of infinite side quests and no main quest so there are always plot items in sandboxes. Giving players an item that’s relevant later works provided that later is within 2 sessions maybe 3 at most, but 3 is pushing it.

There is always context. You always acquire items in a particular place, you are in that place for a reason, and often you acquire the item from someone else, either an enemy ir a friend. You don’t find important items lying in the middle if the road or on the shelf of a random trader’s store.


Also, as everyone else has said, designing an adventure with a failure point like that is just a bad idea. The possibility that characters, acting reasonably according to in-world logic, might make a wrong choice and break your campaign, means you haven't given them enough information. If there's an important plot item, the characters need to know it exists before they find it, especially if it's a game that also has treasure that can be sold for cash, and cash that can be used to buy useful game items.

There is a distinction between a plot item and the plot item. At no point did I suggest that having the plot item is a desirable or undesirable thing. What I’m interested in is giving the players sufficient information to recognize what is and what is not important.

[Thrudd]

Chekov’s gun is a bandwidth issue. You have a limited amount of time and to keep the story moving at a reasonable pace so you pick what’s important and focus on that and let the background be out of focus. You don’t describe every guard and hanger on in the king’s retinue, but you sure as hell describe the king and his key advisors. Anytime you skip over describing every guard but focus on the king you are using Chekov’s gun.

It doesn’t matter if its a sandbox or a railway. Sandboxes are made up of infinite side quests and no main quest so there are always plot items in sandboxes. Giving players an item that’s relevant later works provided that later is within 2 sessions maybe 3 at most, but 3 is pushing it.

There is always context. You always acquire items in a particular place, you are in that place for a reason, and often you acquire the item from someone else, either an enemy ir a friend. You don’t find important items lying in the middle if the road or on the shelf of a random trader’s store.



There is a distinction between a plot item and the plot item. At no point did I suggest that having the plot item is a desirable or undesirable thing. What I’m interested in is giving the players sufficient information to recognize what is and what is not important.

That's fair enough. I'd describe the king and his advisors because presumably those are the people the PCs are interacting with at that moment. They aren't getting every guard described because they aren't looking at or for every guard. If they say "we stop and look at the guard on the right side of the door", I'd give them a description. If they wanted to talk to him, I'd give him a voice and some mannerisms as I RPed. That doesn't mean he's ever going to be seen again. I might be too hung up on the use of the "gun" concept as an analogy for what you're saying, given that the RPG format is so unlike scripted stories, but I think I probably agree in general principle- describe to players the things that would be noteworthy to their characters. Things that seem out of the ordinary probably are.

I agree with the idea that it is good to make sure your "special" items are notable in some way to the characters - ie. "this isn't just any diamond, it has strange swirling lines of light moving around inside it". If they don't get curious about that and look into it more, well, that's on them - but I've given enough of a hint that there's something interesting there, especially if they found it in a secret chest in a wizard's laboratory. However, just describing in detail a very fine but completely mundane-seeming diamond, even if they found it in a wizard's chest, would not be enough to make reasonable characters think that they should do anything with it besides grind it up for spell components or sell it (if we're playing D&D). This, of course, was the context for the incident from the other thread that prompted this topic- a seemingly mundane piece of jewelry, handed to a character who presumably is more interested in cash-at-hand than in a keepsake from an aristocrat. The character (not the player) would have needed more information to believe that they should have kept it, even if it's every mundane detail were described. The player did the right thing, by not metagaming, even if they suspected that the DM had intended this as a special item- it's a mundane piece of jewelry from someone the character doesn't care about.

Know your PCs, know their motivations. If you want players to engage with something in the game, make the thing notable or important to the characters in a way that would motivate them. I wouldn't assume or want my players to be thinking as "audience" or "author", and making out-of-character decisions because it's "probably a chekov's gun, he wouldn't have said there was a torch in this hallway if we couldn't do something special with it". Now, if the torch has a strange blue flame instead of yellow, that doesn't give off any heat...well...I'd expect their characters to wonder about that (assuming this is not a common thing in their world).

[False God]

There is a distinction between a plot item and the plot item. At no point did I suggest that having the plot item is a desirable or undesirable thing. What I’m interested in is giving the players sufficient information to recognize what is and what is not important.

Just tell them.

"As the dragon falls to the ground you spot the large opal ring upon his finger the King sent you to retrieve."

As others have pointed out, if your game is fairly linear it's more practical for the players to just be told "this is the thing", than let them guess. It's not about description or hooks or contextual information. Just tell them. Frodo didn't know Bilbo's special ring was the One Ring until Gandalf showed up and told him so. Which is also (unsurprisingly) the point at which the story begins. It's effectively where the game starts, up until that point Frodo wasn't a player so him being left in the dark if Bilbo's ring was the One Ring didn't matter.

If you've got an open-world game where any item could lead anywhere, then sure, leave it up to the players to uncover what is or isn't important to them. Not necessarily what's important to the world, but what interests them and what doesn't.

But don't bother with that sort of stuff if it's necessary for them to identify the object as the quest item.

---
That is so say: "How do I provide sufficient information to get players to realize this is the plot item?" is the wrong question. In a non-sandbox adventure, it's not about about knowing if the item is or isn't the plot item. It's about getting past the barriers between the players and the plot item. They all know what they're looking for: The silver gun with the ivory handle with strange engravings in an unknown language. But the gun's location is unknown, and even there, it is hidden and defended. Once the players have passed those barriers, "Is this the right item?" shouldn't even be a question.

If your game is sandboxy or semi-sandboxy, the challenge is indeed inverted. Getting any given plot item may be terribly easy. They may have several on them already. They might find another in their soup. But now the realization that the funny golden fork with 5 teeth is actually the key to the doomsday device hidden in the ruins of the ancient kingdom IS the challenge.

You shouldn't need to get your players to realize the Golden Fork is a plot item, because there is no the plot item. It's true the ancient doomsday device may be triggered without it, and it's true that could end the world, but merely having a plot item does not mean your players will care to engage in that plot. So getting them to realize they're completely forked if they don't realize what they have is a non-sequitur. The realization is PART of the challenge of the hidden doomsday device plot.

[Slipjig]

The whole question seems kind of weird, unless you are expecting "Plot Items" to appear to be random bits of detritus.

Of course, there's a difference between Plot Items ("Placing this Golden Idol in the indentation is the only way to open the portal to the next dungeon, and it's the whole reason we're doing this dungeon crawl in the first place") vs. Puzzle Items ("These Unguents of Acid Immunity will make it much easier to get through the trap in Room 16, but there are other solutions"). Plot Items should always be sign-posted by putting them in a location that screams "this is important", while it's fine if the PCs miss Puzzle Items because they don't search the right areas.

[Quertus]

Doesn't the ring have a degree of sentience/agency? Having it find its way back towards one of the main cast who has a chance of putting it on doesn't have to be "railroading," it could in fact be the DM RPing it accurately.

Yeah, it does, and I guess it could (try)… but, again, it’s whether, if Bilbo sold it in Bree, or looked at a map, and decided that Isengard was within walking / riding distance and sold it to Saruman, whether the GM would still try to force the same story, or let the players tell their story, that had different start conditions.


I've noticed over the years that the Venn diagram of people who complain about their players missing stuff on the boards and the people who are dead set on retaining the "mysterious nature" of being a GM is pretty much a circle.

Ponder the easiest way to fix the issue.


100%. I've evolved in my thinking to prefer the tension of "here's info, what are you gonna do about it?" vs "something is happening and you have no info". i think it's more interesting, puts more interesting decisions on the players, tends to keep interest as you avoid the "why do I care" questions, and frankly just leads to fewer misunderstandings.

I guess it’s time for me to see whether it’s time for me to rethink my life.

So, I definitely don’t use “Chekhov’s Gun”. I don’t prioritize descriptive detail based on what *I* think is important, or based on what has “plot relevance”.

Instead, I describe based on
what is most likely to be noticed
what the characters have shown interest in before
what the players have shown interest in before
what the players show interest in right now
enough detail that the players can ask questions
what their skills and experiences tell them


That is, “description” is not intended as a passive activity for the players, but an active one. My description is “here’s the basics of what you see/hear, with a few things filled in that previous experience says you might care about; but characterize your character and customize your play experience: tell me what *you* care about.”.

I suspect that this might be the problem I’ve had with modern gamers, that they have no concept of requesting additional details, being used to being spoon-fed exactly what’s needed per Chekhov’s Gun.

So, am I doing something undeniably, indefensibly stupid? Is it time for me to rethink how I do things? Or, not that I have tentatively identified the problem, could this mismatch be solved by increased communication per “session zero”?

Thoughts?

[Batcathat]

I guess it’s time for me to see whether it’s time for me to rethink my life.

So, I definitely don’t use “Chekhov’s Gun”. I don’t prioritize descriptive detail based on what *I* think is important, or based on what has “plot relevance”.

Instead, I describe based on
what is most likely to be noticed
what the characters have shown interest in before
what the players have shown interest in before
what the players show interest in right now
enough detail that the players can ask questions
what their skills and experiences tell them


That is, “description” is not intended as a passive activity for the players, but an active one. My description is “here’s the basics of what you see/hear, with a few things filled in that previous experience says you might care about; but characterize your character and customize your play experience: tell me what *you* care about.”.

I suspect that this might be the problem I’ve had with modern gamers, that they have no concept of requesting additional details, being used to being spoon-fed exactly what’s needed per Chekhov’s Gun.

So, am I doing something undeniably, indefensibly stupid? Is it time for me to rethink how I do things? Or, not that I have tentatively identified the problem, could this mismatch be solved by increased communication per “session zero”?

Thoughts?

I agree with you in principle, though I suspect that in practice my knowledge of what's important might bias my descriptions (especially since I've probably put more thought into the things that are important than the things that aren't).

While how well players handle this can definitely vary, I don't think it's a modern/old school difference, at least not primarily.

[icefractal]

I suspect that this might be the problem I’ve had with modern gamers, that they have no concept of requesting additional details, being used to being spoon-fed exactly what’s needed per Chekhov’s Gun.Ok, boomer. :smalltongue:

By which I mean that generalizations about "modern gamers" are generally about as accurate as generalizations about "millennials". And I say this as someone whose play-style is more similar to what you posted than it isn't.

That said, I'd say this is a difference of play-styles, with no right answer. The question is how you want to spend your limited time at the table. There are a lot of activities in TTRPGs that have become less common - dungeon mapping, supply management, Roguelike investigation of items, tactical situations that encourage a slow and methodical advance, slow progression, and others.

And these all provide gameplay and interest! They're not useless by any means. But they also consume real-time. So the question becomes: do they provide as much value for the time spent as activities like combat, socializing, negotiations, action scenes, etc.?

Like, I went to a Brazilian steakhouse a while back, where they had cheese-bread on the table and a buffet, included in the price. And all of that was good and tasty food. But I didn't eat much of it, because I have limited stomach space and what I came there for was the steak.

So ultimately what it boils down to, for how much any type of activity "should" be part of a TTRPG is:
"Is this the steak, or the bread?"
And the answer to that will vary between different players.

[MrStabby]

Sometimes its useful for a DM to think the players maybe know a tiny bit of what they are doing.

If a party throws a demonslaying sword in lava... maybe its a gentle hint they don't want a campaign around fighting demons. If they close down avenues of plots by disposing of certain items, maybe they are chosing to do so and to use the agency you have given them to do so.

The players play their characters and so, if a player doesn't want to fight a mummy lord then maybe its OK to sell the map to the ancient tomb that they came across in unusual circumstances.


Its not like this is the case all the time, but might be what is happening sometimes.

[Rynjin]

I suspect that this might be the problem I’ve had with modern gamers, that they have no concept of requesting additional details, being used to being spoon-fed exactly what’s needed per Chekhov’s Gun.

To take your phrasing here in the most positive possible light, I think the issue you might have with "modern gamers" is the general skeleton of what makes a good narrative is more well-known in this day and age. Think of how popular internet critics and "video essays" have gotten in the last decade, dissecting narratives and what makes them tick, and the rampant (though now declining?) popularity of TVTropes in the late-2000s/early-2010s.

And so "modern gamers" might have higher expectations for what a game narrative is, where a lot of "old gamers" never really put too much thought into it and were more ready to shrug off narrative inconsistencies and go with the flow.


So, am I doing something undeniably, indefensibly stupid? Is it time for me to rethink how I do things? Or, not that I have tentatively identified the problem, could this mismatch be solved by increased communication per “session zero”?

Thoughts?

I also think that, regardless of anything else, more communication never hurts. You don't even necessarily need to change your expectations so long as you're able to make the players AWARE of said expectations, though I would advice you to listen if a player comes up with a specific complaint, like maybe your idea of what the characters/players "show interest in" may actually be wrong.

[Telok]

If a party throws a demonslaying sword in lava... maybe its a gentle hint they don't want a campaign around fighting demons. If they close down avenues of plots by disposing of certain items, maybe they are chosing to do so and to use the agency you have given them to do so.

For that one you missed the bit where they were going after demons on their own initative, didn't seek any information (on anything really), and maybe I didn't fully communicate that it was the group "that guy" making a unilateral surprise decision because he" didn't know what to do with it and it didn't help" (like broken magic swords in need of mending usually do).

Several of them are people who are generally happy just given a string of fights in a series of empty rooms with a fig leaf of story somewhere in the general proximity.

[Vahnavoi]

So, am I doing something undeniably, indefensibly stupid? Is it time for me to rethink how I do things? Or, not that I have tentatively identified the problem, could this mismatch be solved by increased communication per “session zero”?

Thoughts?

You aren't doing anything stupid; your players lack skill and/or have not realized that Twenty Questions is subgame of the larger game they're playing.

The solution is to play a simpler game, such as basic Twenty Questions, to develop the skill needed for the larger game. There are ways to do this while playing the larger game - for example, several divination spells in D&D are directly based on Twenty Questions, you can have the guessing game happen between characters as prelude to other events. Going forward, you then just need to remind players to use their wits like they did in the guessing game.

This would also be a proper use of "Chekhov's Gun" for a game, showing early example of something players have to do later.

---


To take your phrasing here in the most positive possible light, I think the issue you might have with "modern gamers" is the general skeleton of what makes a good narrative is more well-known in this day and age. Think of how popular internet critics and "video essays" have gotten in the last decade, dissecting narratives and what makes them tick, and the rampant (though now declining?) popularity of TVTropes in the late-2000s/early-2010s.

And so "modern gamers" might have higher expectations for what a game narrative is, where a lot of "old gamers" never really put too much thought into it and were more ready to shrug off narrative inconsistencies and go with the flow.

Your metric is wrong. You are citing popularity of particular material yet trying to infer ability on part of the consumers based on it. I can almost guarantee it doesn't work this way - technological progress has also made various educational videos more popular than ever, yet in many developed countries where you'd expect these to be most available, literacy and mathematical capability among children and young adults has stagnated or is dropping. Expectations certainly are altered, but knowing what "general skeleton of a good narrative is" is unlikely to have anything to do with it.

Another counterargument would be regression to the mean: as a hobby gets more popular and the number of hobbyists grows, it's more common for new hobbyists to be young or clueless, so even if you have more of highly knowledgeable players also, the average aptitude is going down.

To combine the two: imagine if you were trying to make the same argument about martial arts. Like, MMA is more popular than ever, right? As are various technique tutorials and fight breakdowns. This means "general skeleton of what makes good fighting" is more well-known than before, right? So does this mean the average practicioner who shows up at the gym is more fit do martial arts? No, not really. A newbie is still a newbie and now there are more of them than there are committed longtime hobbyists.

[Rynjin]

Your metric is wrong. You are citing popularity of particular material yet trying to infer ability on part of the consumers based on it. I can almost guarantee it doesn't work this way - technological progress has also made various educational videos more popular than ever, yet in many developed countries where you'd expect these to be most available, literacy and mathematical capability among children and young adults has stagnated or is dropping. Expectations certainly are altered, but knowing what "general skeleton of a good narrative is" is unlikely to have anything to do with it.

Another counterargument would be regression to the mean: as a hobby gets more popular and the number of hobbyists grows, it's more common for new hobbyists to be young or clueless, so even if you have more of highly knowledgeable players also, the average aptitude is going down.

To combine the two: imagine if you were trying to make the same argument about martial arts. Like, MMA is more popular than ever, right? As are various technique tutorials and fight breakdowns. This means "general skeleton of what makes good fighting" is more well-known than before, right? So does this mean the average practicioner who shows up at the gym is more fit do martial arts? No, not really. A newbie is still a newbie and now there are more of them than there are committed longtime hobbyists.

:smallsigh:

You miss the point entirely, even with your chosen example (MMA). Think of the similar corollary when it applies to media and MMA.

MMA is popular. People have a general better sense of how a "real" fight goes. People expect to see those expectations met in their media. These same people are disappointed by "floaty" fight choreography the same LCD audience would have been cheering at 20 years ago.

Does this mean these people can fight? No. Does it mean they can better recognize what a good fight looks like than someone who isn't a fan of combat sports? Yes. Does this means their expectations are harder to meet? Yes.

People now know what tropes are, beyond academics and enthusiasts. The rampant use of the term "Chekhov's Gun" in this thread is a case in point of such. DO you think that 20, 30, 40 years ago the average D&D player would know what that phrase refers to? Absolutely not.

People know the phrase. They know what it means. They know what foreshadowing is "supposed" to look like. They expect it of the narrative, and are thrown for a loop when it's not used.

This isn't rocket surgery. Tailor your story to the audience, or don't complain when the audience "doesn't understand your genius" and everybody has a bad time.

[Vahnavoi]

:smallsigh:

You miss the point entirely, even with your chosen example (MMA). Think of the similar corollary when it applies to media and MMA.

MMA is popular. People have a general better sense of how a "real" fight goes. People expect to see those expectations met in their media. These same people are disappointed by "floaty" fight choreography the same LCD audience would have been cheering at 20 years ago.

You didn't seem to catch that I'm contesting existence of such "better sense" to begin with. You'd have to show independent proof for it existing first before correlation with popularity of a thing even becomes relevant.


Does this mean these people can fight? No. Does it mean they can better recognize what a good fight looks like than someone who isn't a fan of combat sports? Yes. Does this means their expectations are harder to meet? Yes.

You didn't seem to catch that when we're talking about quality of players, we are talking about people who are actually going to do the activity. And I don't actually believe watching someone do something from the outside (like watching MMA on TV or watching a video essay on literary criticism) gives a good idea of how that thing looks from the inside.

If a person is disappointed by the activity they are doing because it doesn't look like what they saw someone else do, because they themselves cannot do it, that's not "better sense". The very thing you claim to have happened - being able to better recognize what a "good thing" looks like - is not there.


People now know what tropes are, beyond academics and enthusiasts. The rampant use of the term "Chekhov's Gun" in this thread is a case in point of such. DO you think that 20, 30, 40 years ago the average D&D player would know what that phrase refers to? Absolutely not.

People know the phrase. They know what it means. They know what foreshadowing is "supposed" to look like. They expect it of the narrative, and are thrown for a loop when it's not used.

This isn't rocket surgery. Tailor your story to the audience, or don't complain when the audience "doesn't understand your genius" and everybody has a bad time.

I don't consider people on this thread representative of the average hobbyist. Also? Let me quote myself: "technological progress has also made various educational videos more popular than ever, yet in many developed countries where you'd expect these to be most available, literacy and mathematical capability among children and young adults has stagnated or is dropping."

Chekhov lived over a century ago; basics of drama and writing have been part of elementary school curriculums for decades. I don't have a good reason to think that the people who repeat the phrase today have a better comprehension of what it means than people few decades in the past. You are again going back to the same wrong metric: that the popularity of phrase indicates skill.

[kyoryu]

Sometimes its useful for a DM to think the players maybe know a tiny bit of what they are doing.

If a party throws a demonslaying sword in lava... maybe its a gentle hint they don't want a campaign around fighting demons. If they close down avenues of plots by disposing of certain items, maybe they are chosing to do so and to use the agency you have given them to do so.

I always argue it's generally a good idea to assume your players are reasonable people. If they choose to do things that appear unreasonable, it's due to a lack of information, misalignment of goals, or different assumptions.

If they throw a demonslaying sword in lava, they might not want to fight demons. They might not know it's a demonslaying sword. They might think doing so will kill all the demons in the lava. They might also be feeling like they're being overly constrained and want to test the boundaries.


The players play their characters and so, if a player doesn't want to fight a mummy lord then maybe its OK to sell the map to the ancient tomb that they came across in unusual circumstances.

More commonly, the map to the mummy lord may sound like something that's high risk and low reward to the character. "Uh, go fight a mummy? Why would we do that?" Sure, there's some level of participationism that's generally required, but that's also helped if you supply the characters with an appropriate motivation to do so. Fabulous treasure (assuming they care), a rare artifact, whatever.



I guess it’s time for me to see whether it’s time for me to rethink my life.

So, I definitely don’t use “Chekhov’s Gun”. I don’t prioritize descriptive detail based on what *I* think is important, or based on what has “plot relevance”.

It's not about being prescriptive or laying things out. What I'm talking about is simply setting expectations.


I suspect that this might be the problem I’ve had with modern gamers, that they have no concept of requesting additional details, being used to being spoon-fed exactly what’s needed per Chekhov’s Gun.

I don't think this is a charitable reading.

In my experience, a lot of GMs play extremely cagey with info, and do so to the point where they don't give the players enough to actually do anything.

The GM thinks "Lord Farquad is preparing an invasion in secret. However, to do so, he has to stockpile grain to feed his army. This is causing him to export less grain, so other countries are following suit. This is causing the price of grain to rise. If the PCs notice this and investigate, they can discover the invasion!"

The GM says: "You hear rumors that the price of grain has risen."

The PC hears this and thinks: "So?"

Or, more reasonably, something like:

The GM thinks "okay, so there's a cult, and they're doing things causing creatures to come up from the underworld. This is pushing out the vermin, and a shopkeeper comes to the PCs whining about rats in their cellar. If the PCs investigate, they'll find the other creatures!"

The GM says: "A shopkeeper comes to you and asks the PCs to clear out rats in the basement."

The PCs respond: "Okay, cool, we'll just roll some oil barrels down and light it on fire. That should clear them up." (or, we'll just board up the basement.) The PCs don't get the cool adventure.

Both of these are basically problems of the PCs reacting reasonably to insufficient information. There's something interesting going on, but the PCs are given something not very interesting to investigate as a way to get them involved.

And, in general, giving more information doesn't mean a) giving all the information or b) spoon-feeding anything. It's about giving enough information to engage the PCs, and can also turn the game from "what's going on?" (which has a common response of "I don't care" if you haven't given them a reason to) to "okay, this is a problem, what do I do about it?"

For the impending invasion? Let them intercept a communique talking about it. For the rats? Let them see something of the greater threat. And you can always use personal motivations for them - treasure, unique items, things they need to accomplish their goals, whatever.

But "something mysteeeeeerious is going on, but you don't know what!" isn't really enough for all but the most "okay, this is where the GM wants us to go, we'll just go there" players. And if you expect the players to just really follow any such "hook" then it shouldn't really be presented as optional, and you should probably have that conversation with the players in session zero.

[Pauly]

To generalize for a minute there seem to be two schools of thought about indicating to players that a particular thing is more important than normal. (NB When I use Chekov’s gun I don't hit my players over the head with a clue by four, I give them enough to indicate this item worth investigating and let them go from there).

1) It’s meta and you shouldn’t do it.
2) don’t be ambiguous, just tell the players what it is and if its important don’t let the players sell it.

Re 1)
I really don’t get why when you’re playing a game where people often plan their character’s leveling 20 levels in advance with full knowledge of the game mechanics that meta is always a bad thing. RPGs are a collaborative story telling exercise and the existence of story telling elements (eg BBEG, old man quest giver, being a PC makes you more gifted than regular folk, level appropriate encounters and on and on and on) is an inherent part of the game. I am all for giving players hints that they can choose to follow up on, even if the hint is “meta”.
Ultimately as a GM I want to see my players succeed. So I don’t see anything wrong with signposting what is important and what isn’t important.

As for 2)
My philosophy is that player agency includes the right to fail because they made bad decisions. Players shouldn’t fail because the couldn’t guess what was in the GM’s pocket. But if the players are given the hilt of the demon slaying sword with a description that tells them this is no ordinary sword hilt, choose not to investigate it and then choose to throw it in a pool of lava then in my book that’s OK. People do dumb, frivolous and self destructive things all the time irl so if a PC says “hold me beer” I don’t have nanny GM step in to prevent it. As long as the player has sufficient information to make at least a semi-informed decision then I let it play out the way the player wants to.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I find the Chekov's Gun to be useful...if you're writing short plays/stories where every word has to be just so. For TTRPGs? No. In large part because they presume that the plot is known in detail far in advance. Which is a style I'm not fond of, because it presumes that the players will (or must) follow a known, predicted path.

But I do throw in "key items". They're key only in the sense of being keys to one of many different adventures out there. If the party didn't go all-in on the dragon egg, then they wouldn't be heading to the Red Lightning (or not in the same way). Or if they did, they'd have a different reaction when they got there than they will. If they'd have left the signet ring behind, the situation would have changed in a couple of places. There's no "failing the main quest", because there isn't a main quest to begin with. Or even side-quests, or even really quests. There are just situations, some of which find the party, some of which the party find, and some of which the party make. And some items (and behaviors and people, but focusing on items) may alter those situations or make resolving them in favorable ways easier or harder, possible or impossible. But none of them is necessary. There are adventures everywhere, and the story is whatever the party decides to chase.

But I do try to make the "key items" fairly obvious. A dragon egg marked with the symbol of the Red Lightning (which is the same symbol associated with one PC's missing father), miraculously (literally) preserved against devils by the self-sacrifice of a cleric? Yeah, that's obviously a key item for something. A signet ring, given them by a ghost of a dragon knight who shouldn't exist (because his view of history was utterly different than the "real" history? Probably something worth hanging on to. Etc.

Sorry @KorvinStarmast--I don't actually know these things in advance. I place the items first, based on things that seem fitting or interesting, then see where they lead. And what ideas they spark.

[kyoryu]

To generalize for a minute there seem to be two schools of thought about indicating to players that a particular thing is more important than normal. (NB When I use Chekov’s gun I don't hit my players over the head with a clue by four, I give them enough to indicate this item worth investigating and let them go from there).

1) It’s meta and you shouldn’t do it.
2) don’t be ambiguous, just tell the players what it is and if its important don’t let the players sell it.

Re 1)
I really don’t get why when you’re playing a game where people often plan their character’s leveling 20 levels in advance with full knowledge of the game mechanics that meta is always a bad thing. RPGs are a collaborative story telling exercise and the existence of story telling elements (eg BBEG, old man quest giver, being a PC makes you more gifted than regular folk, level appropriate encounters and on and on and on) is an inherent part of the game. I am all for giving players hints that they can choose to follow up on, even if the hint is “meta”.
Ultimately as a GM I want to see my players succeed. So I don’t see anything wrong with signposting what is important and what isn’t important.

As for 2)
My philosophy is that player agency includes the right to fail because they made bad decisions. Players shouldn’t fail because the couldn’t guess what was in the GM’s pocket. But if the players are given the hilt of the demon slaying sword with a description that tells them this is no ordinary sword hilt, choose not to investigate it and then choose to throw it in a pool of lava then in my book that’s OK. People do dumb, frivolous and self destructive things all the time irl so if a PC says “hold me beer” I don’t have nanny GM step in to prevent it. As long as the player has sufficient information to make at least a semi-informed decision then I let it play out the way the player wants to.

Nah, I think you have three choices around key items:

1. Make it obvious the item is important in-game.
2. Make it obvious the item is important at a meta level.
3. Make it so the item doesn't gate anything.

Personally, I prefer the third. But any of them work. The only thing that I think doesn't work is doing none of these things.

[Quertus]

First off, thank you everyone who is helping me gain insight on this long-running problem

So, let's see if I can reply to a few of the concepts I've seen people post.

I have simply observed a strong correlation between "modern gamers" and "this problem". It appears that opinions differ on how likely those are to be actually related, vs a matter of random chance, or other variables affecting and influencing the subject pool. Shrug. I doubt we'll come to 100% agreement among all parties on this one. But, correctly or not / until proven that they are independent variables, I associate this behavior (or, more accurately, the prevalence of this behavior) with modern gamers.

"This problem" may, indeed, be a matter of mismatched playstyles. Unfamiliar with the alternate playstyle, neither I nor modern gamers could previously initiate a conversation about it (or modern gamers don't know how to have "session 0" style conversations, I'm honestly not sure which, since I've never had a modern gamer show any skill whatsoever at that activity (as far as I can recall (darn senility))). Point is, I've called it a problem with modern gamers / a problem I've had with modern gamers, and this thread is the first time I've felt I had any understanding of why modern gamers seem unable to engage with the scene.

This isn't just GMs laying complex plans; it manifests in the smallest of ways, too - and I believe that those small ways are easier to discuss, and more likely to hit at the core of the problem (although I'll admit I could be mistaken). Like, if I describe a shoe cubby at a bounce house with 6 pairs of shoes in it, IME a group of modern gamers are much less likely to ask questions about those shoes - or even to attempt to match that "6" with the number of people bouncing in the bounce house. Or, if they're told that there's a plaque, they're much less likely to ask what's written on it.

Not caring about a particular plot line? That's awesome! In fact, that is, IMO, a good reason for the GM not to waste time handing the players information that they don't care about, and waiting for the players to indicate an interest in the information before handing out additional details.

I try to provide the details that I know that the players (and characters - not the same thing) are interested in. Yes, sometimes I could be wrong about what their interests are. @Rynjin, how is that not an excellent argument for players to voice what details they or their characters are interested in - you know, that thing that I feel modern players don't do? Or have I misunderstood you?

Is the game better when it is streamlined for efficiency? Eh, that's a huge can of worms, but I'll happily scream "NO", provisionally (is that the word I want?). That is, while inefficiency can be bad, optimizing efficiency can be equally bad, or worse. After all, a war game is just a really efficient RPG, so shouldn't we throw all our RPGs in the trash, and just play war games?

So, it's really crazy to word it this way, but I think it matters which ways your games are inefficient. My way allows players to dictate where and how (the descriptive portion of) the game is inefficient, to customize it to their desires. (It's also based on "players choose the plot", "allowed to fail", "PCs don't wear their pants on their heads", and many other things, but those seem less relevant, IMO). But I can see how, if players aren't accustomed to that, if they feel like "the plot isn't going anywhere" with the information I gave them, they may react backwards, and not want to slow the game down further with questions, when that may in fact be the best way to make the game move forwards.

So, I guess I do need to go home and rethink my life, and figure out a good way to initiate such a conversation, tests to evaluate style mismatch along this vector, etc.

Anything I just said that anyone's gut response is "You really just don't get it, do you?"? I'm trying to grasp this new concept; anything where what I said sounds like I'm going down the wrong path, out in left field, please let me know!

[Rynjin]

@Rynjin, how is that not an excellent argument for players to voice what details they or their characters are interested in - you know, that thing that I feel modern players don't do? Or have I misunderstood you?



People new to something don't have the proper frame of reference to know "what they're interested in". They are more likely to believe there is a limited set of options when the options are much broader, for instance.

Hell, sometimes it may be that what they're interested in is an entirely different system than what they're playing, but if they only have experience with one system...how are they to know what the differences are?

[Alcore]

Each time you say "modern players" I feel like you're insulting me. :smallmad:

I can easily forgive you...
(I am hardly charitable to my own generation)


I'll touch on something I think I understand...

This isn't just GMs laying complex plans; it manifests in the smallest of ways, too - and I believe that those small ways are easier to discuss, and more likely to hit at the core of the problem (although I'll admit I could be mistaken). Like, if I describe a shoe cubby at a bounce house with 6 pairs of shoes in it, IME a group of modern gamers are much less likely to ask questions about those shoes - or even to attempt to match that "6" with the number of people bouncing in the bounce house. Or, if they're told that there's a plaque, they're much less likely to ask what's written on it.Let me tell you a story... about video games.


Way back when (1990s/early 2000s) when you bought a game there might not be a tutorial. Instead there would be this strange thing that came with the CD; it was called a booklet and it was made of paper. If the boys and girls wanted to play they had two choices. Read or slam their heads against the game's difficulty as they learn the controls. We actually made people think. The travesty! :smallwink:

Now... I will tell you about a modern game I recently played. I found it immensely more insulting than you ever have been to me. The whole screen would darken except in two places; a button (which was glowing gold) and the text box at the bottom that told you to push the button. You can't interact with anything but that button. This isn't reading a booklet; this is the game company taking the controller away and reading the booklet sentence by sentence, button by button. About half an hour later the game was uninstalled...

This isn't a one off occurrence; more and more games are doing this...



The modern gamer is used to be spoon fed instructions. If it was truly important then they could interect with it and it would pop up in the top left/right in the quest log thing. A plaque? It is rare for a game to let you read it. It is rarer still for anything on it it actually matter in the slightest. A shoe cubby? I never remember seeing one in read life (fortunately I actually do know what it is but most would need google). I would draw the connection between 6 pairs and 6 possible people.


So with your modern gamers what you likely need to remember is

1. They might not be able to immediately understand how much of the game world they can interact with. You probably covered this in session zero they might not remember.

2. DnD is considered an RPG. A tabletop rpg but they still have been playing them for years before you met them. They might actually have no frame of reference for the game and how it's played. You potentially have a decade or more of previous conditioning that you have to disassociate from tabletop rpgs.

[Rynjin]

Way back when (1990s/early 2000s) when you bought a game there might not be a tutorial. Instead there would be this strange thing that came with the CD; it was called a booklet and it was made of paper. If the boys and girls wanted to play they had two choices. Read or slam their heads against the game's difficulty as they learn the controls. We actually made people think. The travesty! :smallwink:

Now... I will tell you about a modern game I recently played. I found it immensely more insulting than you ever have been to me. The whole screen would darken except in two places; a button (which was glowing gold) and the text box at the bottom that told you to push the button. You can't interact with anything but that button. This isn't reading a booklet; this is the game company taking the controller away and reading the booklet sentence by sentence, button by button. About half an hour later the game was uninstalled...

This isn't a one off occurrence; more and more games are doing this...

You do realize BOTH of these things (and yes, there are modern versions of the "instruction manual tutorial") are classic examples of bad game design, right? These are right out of the textbook (quite literally) as "things to not do". Praising one and impugning the other is extraordinarily silly.

Good tutorials are diegetic and feel like normal gameplay.

[icefractal]

Ok, the shoe cubby thing is bugging me a bit, because assuming the number of shoes necessarily has significance is "gamist" thinking.

Yesterday I visited a friend who has a "no shoes inside" policy. There were five other people visible when I got there, and 10+ pairs of shoes in the shoe area. So were there five extra people waiting in ambush? Were they secretly serial killers who kept their victims' shoes?

No. The three people who lived there had multiple pairs of shoes each, as many people do, and stored them near the door for convenience. No mystery, no vital piece of info that a "modern gamer" would miss.