I pretty much just go by what makes sense and it seems to work fine.  If the PC were a real person and they'd know something, then the PC knows it and I'll freely tell it to the player.  If an NPC wants the PCs to do something, then he'll tell them anything he knows which might help them to do it, unless there's a strong reason not to (personal embarrassment, under threat from a third party, etc.) and, even in that case, they're going to hint at it to the extent they're able to.

I normally play skill-based games (RQ/HQ), so the PCs either know about something or need to roll a skill to see if they know about something. Occasionally they get a bonus to the skill if they make a good point, but normally it's a straight skill roll. After all, if something is easy to know then why roll?

It should all just be based on what makes sense in the emulated world.

Quote from: RPGPundit;946102It should all just be based on what makes sense in the emulated world.

Agreed - but there are a ton of things that make sense in the emulated world, but still don't make for good gaming.

As GM, I make choices about who the PCs are, and what situations they find themselves in.

For example, in the real world, sometimes there are people who are heavily micromanaged by their superiors, and always have to exactly follow their orders - like foot soldiers in a regimented army. Those exist, but that's not a good choice for PC action to play out in a game. We pick people, times, and places within the world that are the sort of thing we want to play out in a game.

For me, one of the things I'm picking for is how much the PCs know. In the same way that I don't pick PCs who are foot soldiers in a regimented army, I avoid picking PCs who are wanderers into an unfamiliar realm.

Quote from: jhkim;946128For me, one of the things I'm picking for is how much the PCs know. In the same way that I don't pick PCs who are foot soldiers in a regimented army, I avoid picking PCs who are wanderers into an unfamiliar realm.

Weird,  my most successful campaigns have been about PCs who were foot soldiers in an unfamiliar realm.

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.

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?

I'm pretty much with you 100%.  Especially your point 2.

I do counsel my players about keeping under the radar of more powerful NPScS, what with teleport and demon summoning and all.   Well now they are near that level and have reigned merry hell on those who underestimate them.

S GM I have infinite knowledge, I work very hard to make sure my NPCs don't share that, when in doubt I roll.  I really try ot see it from the NPCs point of view with the information they know.  As PCs oft just show up I figure NPCs are more likely to think them mercs of their rivals than anything else.

I'll say over the years it is a lot about selfishness and coming to realize you can give information and still have an challenging game, you just place the challenge elsewhere.    The selfishness comes in that I make these cool dungeon maps and NPC relationship maps and unless I find a in-game reason to share them they may never be seen by my players.

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.

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?

I think this is, in-general, a best practice.

As you say, giving the players the information required to make meaningful choices leads, IME, to a more dynamic game than one where the PCs have very little information rendering their choices random.

A few additions:

0) The characters might not "know what's going on" but I want to make it relatively easy to find out in most cases -- a reoccurring theme here is that the characters actually live in the world and are (in most cases) reasonable protagonists.

1) This works best if it's not a meta- rule. Having highly-trained agents or hardened mobsters squeal just to give the PCs information leads (IME) to a less satisfying game.

2) I want the PCs to have a decent chance of detecting an NPC lie that their characters would detect. Their characters are really there, listening to the NPC. In reality, my friends are listening to the GM (a generally trustworthy person) playing a role. Distinguishing between the GM playing a liar and poor-voice-acting or whatever is challenging. I try to make sure that if the NPC would be anything but an expert liar, the players usually have some direct information ("he seems nervous or unsure") or otherwise provide information that lets the PCs distinguish

3) Similarly, interpreting highly technical clues (e.g. forensic information) is best done at a meta- level, with the PCs getting the conclusions their characters would reasonably draw, instead of just the facts, given that their characters ought to be able to make those inferences, but the players are unlikely to have the right skills.

4) I want the players to have the back-ground and context their characters have, so if the Sand Tribes of Ursomia hate the Hydrogen Families, the PCs would know that, even if the players can't keep all the factions in my game straight.

5) The biggest challenge here is exposition: if the PCs get an info-dump every time they interact with something, the game slows to a halt. I try to keep things snappy; my general approach is that if someone has their PC do something that seems wrong or unlikely to work in a way the character would expect, I'll discuss out-of-context and see if they were missing something, or they're just trying for a long-shot.

This can often sound like, "You're really stupid to think that rushing into the room screaming about about some invented catastrophe would get all the professional soldiers to rush out, head-long into your ambush," so it can be tricky, and sometimes require re-thinking my position (maybe a good enough actor could get the soldiers to run out -- stranger things have happened).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: jhkim;9450552) If people want the PCs help, the standard is that they tell them everything.

Quote from: Xanther;946220I'm pretty much with you 100%.  Especially your point 2.

Quote from: HouseEverybody Lies.

House was right.  The only question is, what will they lie about?  If the people who need the PCs' help are truly innocent in the situation they have become embroiled in, then they will likely be truthful.  However, frequently they have a part to play and sometimes are up to their eyeballs in it.  They will likely hold things back.  Human nature.

Secrets that obviously should be told and are going to come back in a Chekov's Gun sort of way are overused and can be trite plotting, but having open honest people dealing with the PCs as SOP is just as fake.

Quote from: CRKrueger;946532House was right.  The only question is, what will they lie about?  If the people who need the PCs' help are truly innocent in the situation they have become embroiled in, then they will likely be truthful.  However, frequently they have a part to play and sometimes are up to their eyeballs in it.  They will likely hold things back.  Human nature.

Secrets that obviously should be told and are going to come back in a Chekov's Gun sort of way are overused and can be trite plotting, but having open honest people dealing with the PCs as SOP is just as fake.

It's totally funny as hell when the PCs are the ones doing it.  It's pure scrumptiousness when the PCs want the NPCs help, the standard is that they tell them everything and the NPC is the "BBEG".

I'm pretty stingy about PC knowledge.  Of course, I'm playing Lamentations of the Flame Princess, so my players know up front it's a horror based D&D campaign- there aren't many adventurers and those who are adventurers are thought to be madmen with a short life expectancy.   Having said that, it IS possible for PCs to advance and gain levels and gain info, but they have to be clever and cunning about it.  If they they don't put some time in to at least state "My character spends a few hours at the bar to try to pick up the local gossip".  They don't get squat.  If they don't think to ask about the ruins they are about to go into, well tough noogies.   If they do, they might get some local legends which may or may not be accurate or on point (usually I have a table) or I do a reaction check.   Some things are character based, and I have a few house rules (each PC has 3 ranks in a "Profession", that can be as divers as "Profession: Historian" or "Profession: Bowyer", etc.   So sometimes a roll is allowed, but most of the time... not.    My game tends to be more about investigation than anything else... lots of investigation and searching, with a fast and deadly combat.   But common monsters (goblins, gnolls, etc) the PC might know about if it fits their background- then I just give it to them w/o a roll (the gnome and dwarf know about goblins, for example...)

Villians know what makes sense for them to know.  Smart ones are smart and can infer stuff about the PCs, but many are arrogant and stupid or overconfident and the PCs can take advantage of that.   If the PCs start to get a reputation, then that is good for them (allies) and bad for them (villians know who they are and might know about their abilities and be able to prep for them)...  The characters in my game have survived several adventures and have finally started to crest 4th level (which is pretty significant for LotFP)

Just my two cents.