I'm running PFS games and this is largely centered around running published material.
I told my players that their characters are citizens of the world and that I'm assuming they are competent adventurers, regardless of any short-comings of the players. This has some good upsides, the players trust I'm not going to play 'gotcha' and we don't waste table time on mundane tasks like looting or searching every nook and cranny for traps (I just ask the players if they are moving fast, or taking time).
But I'm starting to feel like I'm holding their hands as I walk them through the plot, and the some agency has been lost along the way. It is feeling like I've used this too much and the players are leaning on this as a crutch, a spectator experience as I narrate not only what the characters see, but how they understand what they see.
This became very apparent in an investigation scenario I just ran. A mook captain surrendered, and he gave up all the info he had and gave them a letter from his contact. The letter had key clues for the investigation (alchemical stains), but the players assumed that I gave them all the information that was in the letter when I gave them the info the mook volunteered. So we ended up in the awkward spot where they assumed they read the letter, and I was failing on my promise to treat their characters as competent; just so that the players could participate in the investigation instead of me narrating the whole thing to them.
In hind sight there are things I could have done differently; put more time into describing the letter to draw their attention there, explain to the players at the start of the session that it was an investigation so I would be less liberal with their characters actions and investigations.
Have you had this problem? Have you found a working solutions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an issue with playstyles more than anything. A GM that wants to skip all the mundane stuff by assuming competent player actions really takes away a lot of the potential wonder behind delving through dungeons or social interactions, or as you put it, player agency. This is primarily due that, while there are popular ways to solve encounters or dungeon delving, those may not be the choices that a PC will take, for mechanical (can't go invisible, for example) or flavorful reasons (maybe they'd rather kill them all instead of run from a fight, because it's dishonorable to run from a worthy opponent).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"(alchemical stains)" is also something the typical players isn't looking for or knows is a 'thing', so I'd expect a sizable 'nudge' needed for the typical party, let alone one you regularly skip over the other mundane things. I wouldn't call it a crutch in this situation, it's just that the 'key clue' wasn't what is generally thought of as a clue... You can't assume not noticing the clue as their assuming there wasn't one. Sometimes everyone misses those important clues. It happens no matter the GMing style. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, talking directly to the players works well when they're missing a clue. I've run a mystery scenario where I've explained that that it's the character competency that finds clues, and the player competency that interprets them. Knowing that there are tracks to find, I'll call for a Survival roll to find them, but once found, it's up to the players to put together "The tracks seem to be leaving only a single footprint, with a hard round imprint next to it", with the Diplomacy check that told them a suspicious looking half-orc with a peg-leg had been nosing around.
Like just mention the oddity of such stains.
You see the note that says ..., it also has alchemical stains. You guys know that stains of this kind would be uncommon for such a letter. What are you guys going to do with this info?
A mook captain surrendered, and he gave up all the info he had and gave them a letter from his contact. The letter had key clues for the investigation (alchemical stains), but the players assumed that I gave them all the information that was in the letter when I gave them the info the mook volunteered.
So If I am understanding, upon surrender you just told the players everything you thought the guy could tell them, without the players asking and questions or making any rolls?
For me at least, as a player and a GM, that is a lot more hand holding than I would want. What questions to ask, exactly how they answer, and what skill to use (diplomacy or intimidate for example) to get the answer are all a big part of the game to me, and just having a GM give out a wall of exposition doesn't seem to me to be playing a game as much as watching a performance.
Now of course, you have to deal with the fact that a Player might not be skilled at investigations while a character is. As a GM I make allowances for that (for example, a player without great diplomatic skill is playing a character who has one, I'll take the 'spirit' of what the player said, but use their diplomacy roll to inform how well/convincing it sounded) but at the end of the day, the choices should be the players. If they ask, I'll give them information based on their skills, and if I notice something that I think they have missed that they should know I'll inform them (Your one rank of Diplomacy tells you that comparing his mother to a troll might not be well received) but beyond that, what they do is up to them.
I guess I don't have any real advice for your situation, just that perhaps, as you seem to think, walking back a ways from giving them everything might correct the issue you are seeing.
A mook captain surrendered, and he gave up all the info he had and gave them a letter from his contact. The letter had key clues for the investigation (alchemical stains), but the players assumed that I gave them all the information that was in the letter when I gave them the info the mook volunteered.So If I am understanding, upon surrender you just told the players everything you thought the guy could tell them, without the players asking and questions or making any rolls?
My description simplified things, the mook was a patriotic mercenary. They convinced him that he had been deceived by his employer (he had), and bought out his contract. So he was friendly to them at this point (via their diplomatic approach).
But again, this example is just a symptom of the underlying problem; Being to far off balance in the trade off between fast game-play and the characters discovering through trial and error.
This is a hard balance to make. Especially with game-stalling clues. If you make them have to roll and they blow it, then you lose the thread of the investigation. This is why I like adventures that give lots of clues that will all lead to the right path. They may miss part of it, but they'll find something else. (And there's no need to add red herrings. Players tend to do that on their own)
But if you don't have a choice, I tend to do a couple of hints. Maybe as they pull the letter out of the bag, the alchemical fumes in a tight space make them a little woozy. After a couple of hints, I'll usually hit them with a clue-by-four and give something blatant.
As for your idea, I'd suggest setting up a standard speech to the group at the start. Explain that basic things like searching will be handled automatically, but beyond that it's up to the players.