Ok, so I'm here with another thread on GMing/DMing. This time we're discussing the need for some runners to perpetuate an air of mystery by being deliberately obtuse or vague.
Running a game and delivering clues to your players is an art form, I get that. There is this delicate balancing act of not giving away the farm while also not being withholding. Still, there is a difference between this tug-of-war and deliberately hinting that there MIGHT be some mystery, then going out of your way not to answer any more questions on it.
Say, for example, you have some cultists attack an NPC in the opening scene of a campaign. The characters spring into action, save the NPC and defeat multiple cultists. One of the players, after the fight ends, makes a point to check these cultists for unholy symbols or other indicators of their patron b/c he's running a cleric.
Now you as the GM called them "cultists" when putting the minis down on the board. You doubled down on the use of the word when the NPC took a hit and almost died in the Surprise round. This means you've already established that these villains are in some kind of evil religious group, setting up a mystery. Stating that each villain has "some kind of symbol" with no unifying characteristics feels intentionally obtuse.
Later on, the NPC provides the party a book on the cult. Supposedly this group has existed for 500 years. They've propped up imperial dynasties, orchestrated wars, and nearly succeeded in destroying the world, twice. The cleric player once again asks about the unholy symbol of the cult and you handwave again with "their symbol seems to take many forms, but often incorporates a wolf's head in some way."
So now the player still has no clear indicator on some way to ID the cultists, except that MAYBE it has a wolf's head - supposedly this is a reference to a form the god MIGHT take. Then again, it is rumored to take many forms as a being of Chaos so the wolf thing isn't a guarantee. However, by saving the NPC this new contact wants to induct the party into an order dedicated to destroying the evil cult.
As a DM you may think that this is a good way to obscure the cult until you're ready to fully reveal some layer of their mystery, while at the same time getting your players interested in that mystery. However, the way in which you've gone about it means you're telling your players that if they investigate things they'll run into dead ends and that even the NPCs are unreliable narrators.
Being intentionally vague or obtuse with clues or details in the game doesn't make you more mysterious. Instead it just encourages your players to stop trying to figure out the secrets you're trying to obscure.
Let's say that the core mystery you're shooting for here is what form the god will take in this latest plot by the evil cult. You also don't want to make it too easy for players to ID cultists on the street. Ok, well, if the cleric PC asks about unholy symbols, tell them that 2 of the bad guys have a chaos circle with a snarling wolf's head; another features a cobra's face, and a fourth is insect-like. Later, when the NPC shows the party the lore of the cult, you can reveal that each of those symbols is from an earlier iteration of the god.
Now you STILL haven't revealed anything about the current, accurate holy symbol to the players but you've highlighted the nature of the threat and given some narrative details that help the players understand the deity and the cult a little better.
Tell me your stories or advice about avoiding being intentionally vague or obtuse just for the sake of appearing inscrutable.
I do like that you frame these posts in way of a discussion, but damn do you have an axe to grind :)
The GM that never lets the players in on their setting secrets is a boring one. The problem is those GMs dont understand that player perspective. This reminds me of young immature GMs who create a cool secret world that the PCs get to play in, but never really have any impact or agency with it. If the players ever did, it no longer belongs solely to the GM!
There is another possibility that the GM wants to build out a cool secret society and plot for the PCs to uncover, but never gives out enough detail because they never bothered to figure out any significant detail to begin with. There will always be next session and the session after that. One day, though, it will be awesome, just trust them...
So my main advice is dont be one of those folks. My GMing advice is to consider your game type. A linear game vs. a non-linear game should have different focuses.
A linear game should be well planned out and focused in detail. Typically, the PCs and the GM will be working with one specific plot with any number of players. Session zero is important and the players should know what to expect. I.E. Desert adventure set in X setting and PCs are agents trying to specifically do a particular thing. I think the best example of this is a Paizo Adventure Path. Sure, Golarion has tons going on, but in this campaign you are focused on this particular area and/or element.
A non-linear game should be a series of plots and happening that the players should get to decide if they want to engage or not. Exploration takes the forefront in place of a specific event or happening. Its ok for leads to lead to dead ends or to exciting ones too. Once a thread leads to an end you can start another and another...
Now there are ways a linear game can avoid being a railroad, and ways for a non-linear game to be a smaller sandbox. The Kingmaker adventure path comes to mind. So dont let the type of campaign box you in too much, but let it guide you.
So there may be reasons to be cagey about information as a GM. Allowing the Pcs to identify cult members at session 1 might be giving it all away. That is something the PCs may need to work towards. Always a step behind the PCs are it seems, until they are not! Though, if this cult is one of many, its no big deal if the PCs out them sooner than later.
Sorry, I don't mean to just "axe grind" in my threads. I know I probably do that a lot though, so I apologize.
I'm trying to use this discussion to illustrate how to build mysteries in games without obscuring everything or being withholding as a GM/DM. I used the case of the cult unholy symbol b/c it came up over the weekend.
I agree with everything you're saying here Pan-tastic. Often times what I've observed is that "cagey" GM/DMs enjoy maintaining that old-fashioned separation between DM and player. Like, I hide my rolls from the players most of the time but if they want to make up a home village, or an NPC from their character's past, or add some other narrative or setting detail to the game so be it.
This tells me my players are engaged. Building a mystery shouldn't mean holding EVERYTHING behind a veil of secrecy, it should be about revealing just enough bread crumbs to encourage the players to take up the search.
If you've got a mystery piece in your games then too bad; you're going to have to prep, at least a little. You need to figure out EXACTLY what the secret is and how you're hiding that from the players. THEN you need to figure out what the bread crumbs are that will guide your players to what you need them to know. Finally, you need to think as your players do, about what those bread crumbs will tell them.
From what I got from the DM this past weekend, what he DOESN'T want is our characters going right at the evil cult. Our characters are supposed to still be in the "low level, small mission" stage of the game as he put it.
Knowing what their unholy symbol is wouldn't automatically mean our PCs would know how to root out every cultist. We'd still have to find THAT symbol on individuals to ID them as cultists and at this level of the game that could be obscured by something as simple as clothing.
No, I feel like the larger part to game runners that obscure EVERYTHING in their games and are withholding of clues/details is that there's this need to maintain distance between them and the players. It's THEIR game; I don't get to know cool secrets until they TELL me.
For the millionth time, I wish GM/DM's like this would understand that for a lot of players, myself included, the fun in the game isn't set piece fights and listening to the game runner tell me things, it's in figuring things out and working WITH the game runner to build a larger story together.
Sorry, I don't mean to just "axe grind" in my threads. I know I probably do that a lot though, so I apologize.
I'm trying to use this discussion to illustrate how to build mysteries in games without obscuring everything or being withholding as a GM/DM. I used the case of the cult unholy symbol b/c it came up over the weekend.
I agree with everything you're saying here Pan-tastic. Often times what I've observed is that "cagey" GM/DMs enjoy maintaining that old-fashioned separation between DM and player. Like, I hide my rolls from the players most of the time but if they want to make up a home village, or an NPC from their character's past, or add some other narrative or setting detail to the game so be it.
This tells me my players are engaged. Building a mystery shouldn't mean holding EVERYTHING behind a veil of secrecy, it should be about revealing just enough bread crumbs to encourage the players to take up the search.
If you've got a mystery piece in your games then too bad; you're going to have to prep, at least a little. You need to figure out EXACTLY what the secret is and how you're hiding that from the players. THEN you need to figure out what the bread crumbs are that will guide your players to what you need them to know. Finally, you need to think as your players do, about what those bread crumbs will tell them.
From what I got from the DM this past weekend, what he DOESN'T want is our characters going right at the evil cult. Our characters are supposed to still be in the "low level, small mission" stage of the game as he put it.
Knowing what their unholy symbol is wouldn't automatically mean our PCs would know how to root out every cultist. We'd still have to find THAT symbol on individuals to ID them as cultists and at this level of the game that could be obscured by something as simple as clothing.
No, I feel like the larger part to game runners that obscure EVERYTHING in their games and are withholding of clues/details is that there's this need to maintain distance between...
The key to dropping hints to the larger picture while not wanting the party to take it on immediately is to make sure there's other more pressing stuff to do. Drop the hints, but keep them background to what's happening up front until you're closer to ready for that plotline to take center stage.
You also have to always expect the players to leap to the right conclusion long before you thought they would or need you to lay dozens more clues than they should need before they get it. Players switch between brilliant and oblivious at a moment's notice. Generally whichever way is most disruptive.
Its all good Mark. I appreciate that you turn your vents into constructive discussions as opposed to just stopping by and rage-sharting on your GM buddy.
There is nothing wrong with the players getting their feet wet at lower levels before dropping the real deal on them. My advice, dont drop any hints until they are ready to pursue. Also, what thejeff said is sound. Give some little hints to something brewing, but it aint as important as whats happening, right here, right now!
Background hints are definitely a good way to go. My rule of thumb is always - don't put a problem directly in front of a party unless I want them to solve it.
Players in most games are like dogs with bones. They can MAKE even the most sandboxy game very linear simply by realizing there's a threat that needs dealing with. Of course, if you're planning a really linear game in the first place then that works in your favor.
If the game is a mystery game though, you have to be selective in your obscurity. If EVERY clue is a struggle for the players to fine and is also presented with very vague, obtuse narration, players may lose interest.
Stuff about my style:
I don't massively prep for games, but I do homebrew almost everything. When making an outline I lay out my suggestions for pacing. I WANT my players to get on the trail of this villain by level x, and confront the villain by level y, that kind of thing. In order to TRY and stick to that pacing I use the 3 clue rule from The Alexandrian article I've linked.
I know that many folks don't like the blog or its advice, but this one stuck with me. Essentially the 3 clue rule says take the mystery and add 3 different clues to solve it which the PCs should be able to find. I like how the linked article expands this to larger, narrative mysteries like the defined "chokepoints" in the article.
When I outline my games I try and ID these chokepoints; places in the story I NEED my players to get to in order to move from one bullet point to the next in my game. Some of these I can eliminate with non-linear GMing, like moving room 5 in a dungeon to room 2 if need be.
The real, obvious chokepoints get sub-bullets in my outline with some suggested solutions.
Extended mysteries can be run the same way. In this weekend's game the basic mystery, if I'm understanding things, is encountering the cult. Here's how I would've plotted things out:
1. PCs meet for dinner with NPC; dinner is interrupted by assassins who are secretly cultists
a. NPC lives: he thanks the PCs for their help, offers them a position in an order dedicated to ending this cult
b. NPC dies: place an orgy of evidence about the order in his room; potentially have a servant or intelligent familiar relate the master's wish that the party join the order
2. PCs uncover the existence of the cult (chokepoint)
a. Talk with NPC if still alive
b. Find evidence of the deity worshipped on the bodies of the assassins
c. Mentions of the cult are in the orgy of evidence if NPC died
3. More pressing matters - undead have overrun the local cemetery
That all took me about 10 minutes to plot out. I can use generic stat blocks for the assassins and undead. I have a book of pre-generated dungeons containing several crypts, so I don't need to draw anything for those. The only stuff left for me to really prep are the pieces of "evidence" that the PCs will be confronted with.
If I do my job right in this first session, a dark cult will appear on the horizon for the PCs and they will be encouraged to join an order dedicated to stamping this evil out. Before they can fully invest in that mystery however, screams erupt and the living dead are terrorizing the town. Now the PCs have to go to the cemetery, where they find a low level cleric doing her best to keep the undead at bay and heal wounded NPCs.
At this point the immediate threat of a massive hoard of undead in the crypts below the cemetery should be obvious. The PCs should (because I only allow Good alignments in my games) reach the decision that they need to go down into the crypts and destroy all of the undead. I'll hit a random generator to spit out some treasure and somewhere down there I'll drop some hint that the cult may have had a hand in bringing this about.
Often when building mysteries the GM/DM needs to put themselves in the mindset of their players, or at the very least understand the mechanics and capabilities of the characters. Whether it's linear or sandbox, a mystery automatically means that players can make decisions that send them in a direction you didn't anticipate. This in turn means that you need to have SOME kind of way to either encourage them back to the right way or a way to adapt your story to their decisions.
If you want to keep it even subtler (and farther in the future) -- the NPC doesn't know about the cult or why he's being targeted. All you get is the symbol on one of the assassins.
The PCs can try to dig farther, but won't find much at this point maybe a name or historical mention if they get smart and lucky before the undead horde becomes a problem and they go deal with that. Where there can be another hint that the same symbol is tied to that. Or not - nothing wrong with multiple plot lines. The cult can come back up a few times before there's an opportunity to really engage.
See, now, I'd thought about that TJ Woman of the Night, but the way the DM started the game I wanted to be true to his vision. Right off the bat he shared with us through the NPC that yes, there's an evil cult, yes, they're responsible for a couple local calamities, and there's this order that's been fighting them for centuries.
From that, you'd think that this was shaping up to be a "go destroy the cult" type game. The DM even told us he likes running linear games, but tries not to railroad. But then I was like "Ok, one of my PCs has proficiency with Religion, the other has History; let me search these assassins and see what our PCs already know."
Then all of a sudden, the DM gets "cagey" as Planny P puts it. The unholy symbols are ill defined; I can't ID the deity, even with a roll of 20 on my Religion check; there's no recorded history of the cult or its activities that my sorceress can recall. And yet, then the NPC HANDS us a book that supposedly has some of this detail in it, obtained from the records of the order.
Yet, as I ask some specific questions like what's the symbol of the god, what animals/monsters/minions do they use, what's the deity's weapon or color, etc... there are NO answers in the book either. So my characters don't have any details, we're told we have a book with the details but they're not there either, and we have to immediately go save the town from undead so we can't ask anymore questions.
It's kind of to the point that, after the undead crypt part wraps up I'm going to investigate this NPC instead of the cult. Like, all I have to go on is HIS WORD that there's any actual cult, or that this god exists, or that the order we've been inducted into is anything more than an idea.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Just a bit of devils advocacy here:
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Let's say that the core mystery you're shooting for here is what form the god will take in this latest plot by the evil cult. You also don't want to make it too easy for players to ID cultists on the street.
That is but one kind of mystery the GM could be running based on the set up you described. Alternatively the GM could simply be running a mystery about how deep the rabbit hole goes on this cult that has indeed held so much power in secret for 500 years. It could be that to the mystery they want to run, the symbol is only as relevant as that it takes many forms and often incorporates a wolf.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
If you've got a mystery piece in your games then too bad; you're going to have to prep, at least a little. You need to figure out EXACTLY what the secret is and how you're hiding that from the players. THEN you need to figure out what the bread crumbs are that will guide your players to what you need them to know. Finally, you need to think as your players do, about what those bread crumbs will tell them.
I've run a lot of World of Darkness which frankly works best narratively as an onion of mystery that your characters are constantly peeling layers off of. Yes the GM needs to prep the mystery, yes the GM needs to know the details. As someone who has run many a mystery I can also say that there are times where the players keep tugging at a thread that was never loose to begin with. Sometimes the symbols don't mean anything, sometimes the chair is just a chair, and sometimes the secret chamber just happens to be next to the Nosferatu tunnels.
Sometimes I'll set up a mystery in a game and not define the whos, whats, hows, and whys behind the mystery. I'll still drop clues, and let the PCs follow them, using what they uncover and what they're interested in to fill in the blanks that I'd left for myself. I then back-construct the mystery's origin based on what the PCs do and what the players have expressed interest or passion about.
[I'm also in the process of writing an RPG that formally uses this sort of emergent mystery generation, based on ideas from the RPGs Cthulhu Dark and Brindlewood Bay.)
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Haladir wrote:
Sometimes I'll set up a mystery in a game and not define the whos, whats, hows, and whys behind the mystery. I'll still drop clues, and let the PCs follow them, using what they uncover and what they're interested in to fill in the blanks that I'd left for myself. I then back-construct the mystery's origin based on what the PCs do and what the players have expressed interest or passion about.
[I'm also in the process of writing an RPG that formally uses this sort of emergent mystery generation, based on ideas from the RPGs Cthulhu Dark and Brindlewood Bay.)
Backfilling the holes the players dig with the flesh of the mystery is a great way to let the players define the scope of the mystery by the way that they investigate.
