I'm not sure that I've brought this up here before. For the past several years, I've aspired to a rule of thumb in my campaigns - that the PCs should usually know more about what's going on than anyone else. That doesn't mean they know everything - they still have to investigate hard to discover things - but they don't have to deal with all-knowing NPCs. If there is a villain, the villain doesn't know everything about them and everything else. The villain is usually concerned and in the dark about their actions as much as they are concerned about his actions.

1) Rather than looking for reasons to hide information, as I design an adventure, I'm looking for reasons to give more information up-front.

2) If people want the PCs help, the standard is that they tell them everything.

3) I encourage or arrange for the PCs to have superior intelligence-gathering resources than the people around. That will sometimes just be a part of the premise, or it could be in magic items that they find, or contacts they have, etc.


The point is to try to get games to be more about the PCs making informed decisions, rather than wandering blindly or being lead around by the nose. I often don't live up to this - and PCs do end up wandering around uninformed, but I'll realize I'm doing that and try to change things. Partly, also, this is reacting to a tendency I have (along with many GMs) for NPCs to know everything that I do. It can be hard to role-play NPCs being ignorant, so it's something I try to do more often.

Does anyone else struggle with this, or something similar?

Sorry, but I can't say as I've ever had an issue with it big enough to have to create a rule like you did.

Quote from: jhkim;945055... but they don't have to deal with all-knowing NPCs. If there is a villain, the villain doesn't know everything about them and everything else. The villain is usually concerned and in the dark about their actions as much as they are concerned about his actions.

I agree with this. Players shouldn't have to deal with all-knowing NPCs. "Villains" should have their own limitations based on their background, their connections, and their position in society or resources at hand. They may have fewer or greater information-gathering resources than the PCs. But that really comes down to circumstances, in my opinion.

QuoteIt can be hard to role-play NPCs being ignorant, so it's something I try to do more often.

I think it's all a matter of perspective. Viewing situations/encounters/interactions from the perspective of the villain and making informed decisions on what their reactions/awareness will be.

If you spend any time at all detailing the background, motivations, and behavior of an NPC, I think it's worth spending the extra time to detail their individual goals, plans, and reactions to opposition. And use that detail to roleplay them.

I'm not saying script out exhaustive narratives. Just create some guidelines to follow.

Yes and No.

My main struggle is world essential NPCs being dicks.  The town guard, merchants, etc.  Mostly it's town guards.  But in my lame ass biased defense that's from decades of players thinking every town guardsman is corrupt, dumb, knows everything going on for miles around, etc.  

As for the 'movers and shakers' of the world.  I use bullet points for what they know, may know, and will know.  That will all be based upon time

I think we all have to struggle with making sure the bad guys are both as smart/informed or dumb/ignorant as they should be.  Making sure you define strengths and weaknesses in your head for the main NPCs along as many axes as you can think of certainly helps.

As far as the players always having the info they need...for me that depends.  If they should know it, I make sure they do, but that *should* is based on the particulars of the PC, not simply that they "are a PC".

Quote from: jhkim;945055I'm not sure that I've brought this up here before. For the past several years, I've aspired to a rule of thumb in my campaigns - that the PCs should usually know more about what's going on than anyone else. That doesn't mean they know everything - they still have to investigate hard to discover things - but they don't have to deal with all-knowing NPCs. If there is a villain, the villain doesn't know everything about them and everything else. The villain is usually concerned and in the dark about their actions as much as they are concerned about his actions.

I think I understand the concern. I am not 100% sure though so just to phrase my sense of your intention here: You don't want your omniscience as a GM to result in equally omniscient villains that also have the potential for things like railroads or heavy handed hooks to emerge? (because even if you are not consciously trying to do so, you might use that information to encourage certain developments in the game).

If I understand you I think this is a reasonable concern. Figuring out how much the villains know and how much they don't, when you know everything is tough. I have come up with a variety of approaches to keep that in check where I can. The first thing I do is think through what the villain knows and how (what their resources are, where their men are stationed, how they go about acquiring information). I also have an informal information network mechanic. Basically I assign a dice pool of between 0-6d10 based on what I believe the NPCs extend of knowledge might be (i.e. if they want some information on the party that is in the western kingdom, and they are two kingdoms away, with limited men in the west, they might roll 1d10 against a standard Target Number to see if they know anything). I also make a point of having specific routes of information to the NPC. So maybe he sends someone to spy on the party to see where they are headed. If I do that, then the players have a chance of detecting the spy. I also decide who the NPCs informants are. In one campaign the party was going up against an organization and they had an extensive network of informants. I would make sure when those characters saw the party to report information, the players also saw them (they didn't necessarily know they were informants, but they might know a steam bun vendor is paying attention to them, or in the area). Generally speaking being able to draw a line of justification for any knowledge the NPC has is pretty important. So if you intend to surprise the party with an ambush at Devil's Crossing, I think you need to establish how the villain would know the party was heading there, at that time, and how they would get their men into position (as well as any give-aways the PCs might notice as they approach). If you are doing all the stuff I mentioned previously, then that line already exists in the campaign by the time they get there and you can point to specific things if the players ask about them. That is how I handle that sort of thing anyways. Not sure if it is exactly what you are referring to.

My neighborhood DM in the 80's took the 'player ignorance' to extremes, not giving any numbers if possible for enemy hit points, monster ID if we hadn't seen one or heard of it, etc.

It was fun and annoying at once.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;945067My neighborhood DM in the 80's took the 'player ignorance' to extremes, not giving any numbers if possible for enemy hit points, monster ID if we hadn't seen one or heard of it, etc.

It was fun and annoying at once.

Not knowing enemy's hit points is normal isn't it?

Quote from: jhkim;9450551) Rather than looking for reasons to hide information, as I design an adventure, I'm looking for reasons to give more information up-front.

2) If people want the PCs help, the standard is that they tell them everything.

3) I encourage or arrange for the PCs to have superior intelligence-gathering resources than the people around. That will sometimes just be a part of the premise, or it could be in magic items that they find, or contacts they have, etc.
 

Does anyone else struggle with this, or something similar?

If it is a question of flow of information during an adventure to the party, my approach isn't to give all info upfront, but also not be miserly. If they ask an innkeeper a question, unless he has good reason to lie or conceal, he'll tell them what they want to know. I also just find thinking through in advance how information might flow, where it might lead and where potential bottlenecks in the session are can be helpful. I don't mind a bottleneck here or there, but it is helpful not be blindsided by them. I also figure there is always more than one way to skin a cat. I might expect information B to come up with they explore cavern Y, but maybe if they put two-and-two together and find another way of gaining the info, that is fine too. I notice this a lot in modern setting adventures where you can come at information problems from a wide variety of angles with powerful tech.

Quote from: One Horse Town;945069Not knowing enemy's hit points is normal isn't it?

Sure, but not knowing how many points of damage you did was annoying. 'You hit really hard, he looks weakened' was tough on resource conservation!

I don't think it should be that hard to limit NPC knowledge--this has never seemed like a problem although it could be exploited in interesting ways by some NPCs (allies or enemies) having quite incorrect information.

As for PCs, I agree that it's better to be generous with information unless a mystery is the very point of the situation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;945060I think we all have to struggle with making sure the bad guys are both as smart/informed or dumb/ignorant as they should be.  Making sure you define strengths and weaknesses in your head for the main NPCs along as many axes as you can think of certainly helps.

As far as the players always having the info they need...for me that depends.  If they should know it, I make sure they do, but that *should* is based on the particulars of the PC, not simply that they "are a PC".

The point is that the particulars of the PC and their situation are largely controlled by how I set things up as GM in my campaign.

The adventure in my campaign could have the PCs are all strangers wandering into a country where they don't know anyone, intervening in a conflict that the locals are loath to talk about.

Or the adventure could be about the PCs returning to their former master's stronghold to wreak revenge on her, where they know the layout and personally know many of the defenders.

I'm saying that I'm trying to have more adventures like the latter - where the PCs know what's what, and the focus is on them making informed decisions.

I've allways had players who were pretty good at not acting on knowledge they might have outside their characters.

But one thing I implimented at a players suggestion many a year ago and have used ever since is a "Common Knowledge" list. The things the PCs and most local NPCs know about monsters. Each list based on whats known in the area and how out in the boonies the start town is from the normal traffic. And how common monsters are.

So for example everyone knows what goblins are because theres a tribe that raids now and then. They know about some undead because years ago there was a local necromancer run amok. They know of ogres because one ate a family a few years ago but was never caught and is now the towns Boogy Man as it were. Everyones heard of dragons. But no ones ever seen one.

While a different campaign might have dragons, kobolds and lizardmen as well documented. While in another physical undead are unknown but etherial ones are well known as a spectre resides in the nearby necropolis and sometimes comes fourth to help the town against raiders.  

And so on.

As a player I find not acting on knowledge the PC doesnt have to be easy. Just dont. How hard is that? Same with DMing and NPCs. So what if I as the DM know the PCs set a trap for the villain and the villain totally doesnt suspect? Then hes going to walk right into that trap.

Quote from: jhkim;945086The point is that the particulars of the PC and their situation are largely controlled by how I set things up as GM in my campaign.

The adventure in my campaign could have the PCs are all strangers wandering into a country where they don't know anyone, intervening in a conflict that the locals are loath to talk about.

Or the adventure could be about the PCs returning to their former master's stronghold to wreak revenge on her, where they know the layout and personally know many of the defenders.

I'm saying that I'm trying to have more adventures like the latter - where the PCs know what's what, and the focus is on them making informed decisions.

This seems fair to me. It sounds more like a setting issue and establishing how familiar the PCs are with the area and its people. I've done things like this, where is some campaigns, they are heroes on the frontier and may be operating with less knowledge, but in others they've been heroes adventuring near their home village (or returning to their home village) and everything is much more familiar to them. What you are describing sounds like the latter to me, and I've had a lot of fun with that kind of set up. I think the only challenge there is if the players decide they want to venture out beyond where they have local knowledge. One solution that is handy here is things like gazetteers. I use them in my wuxia campaigns because they always come up in ancient china. They are pretty detailed too. So all it takes to equip players with that kind of knowledge is them having a gazetteer that explains the people, geography, etc. It definitely makes for a different kind of adventure because they might already know a lot of details they would otherwise have to poke around to discover. Also, some of these things can just be pretty common knowledge if you want.

I believe in PCs being competent. Before the player showed up, the PC somehow navigated their world.  

Also, it makes sense that if villagers want to be saved, they spill the beans as much as possible to their would-be saviors.