Angry Information Management (Part 2): Facts, Implications, and Distractions

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Banner Patreon 800 x 100

Category GMing 800 x 450

A long time ago, I started talking about Information Management. Wait… holy mother of f$&%, that was only yesterday! Well, I guess that whole article should be fresh in everyone’s minds, then, huh? Can I get away without recapping? Can I get away without doing a Long, Rambling IntroductionTM? F$&% it, I’m going to try.

But What IS Information?!

You might have noticed, in all of that faffing around about WHY information management is important and how to classify information that the one thing I assumed is that you actually KNOW what information is. Uncharacteristically kind of me, no? Well, I wasn’t doing it to complement you. I was doing it because THIS article is about the form that information takes in the game. And, honestly, you probably knew enough about what information is to get you through yesterday’s article. But now, it’s time to really dig in. What IS information in a RPG? And what form does it take in the game?

First of all, it’s easy to say that information is “everything that can be known about the game.” But that’s not really a useful definition, as true as it may be. And that’s why we broke it further down into stuff that impacts the players’ decisions or stuff that explains or provides context for events in the game world. But that just classifies information. What IS information?

Let’s start with facts. Facts are things that can be known about the game world. Red dragons breathe fire. The king is having an affair with an elf from Va’na’fa’la’la’la’la. A longsword does 1d8 points of damage. Those are all facts about the game world. And right away, you might notice something important that will still twist the bowels of some GMs. There are actually two different languages. There is worldspeak and gamespeak. AND BOTH ARE EQUALLY VALID AND IMPORTANT.

Digression: Gamespeak vs. Worldspeak

The fact that a longsword does 1d8 points of damage is gamespeak. It refers to the game mechanics. The fact that a longsword is a more deadly weapon than a dagger is worldspeak. It is something that the characters in the world can understand without reference to the rules of the game. Here’s another example. “The king is trying to hide his affair” is worldspeak. “If a player mentions the king’s affair, they will have advantage on any social interaction check to get the king to provide aid” is the gamespeak equivalent.

Now, there are a few things that don’t translate between gamespeak and worldspeak. There are some things that exist ONLY in the fictional world. For example, personality traits that influence the choices that the GM makes for NPCs – because you don’t generally use game mechanics to make decisions for NPCs, you ROLE-PLAY – traits that influence NPC choices may exist only as worldspeak. Likewise, lore, backstory, themes, tone, and other bits of narrative emotional set dressing really only exist in worldspeak. There are also a very small number of rules that exist only as gamespeak. Those represent mechanical abstractions that would make no sense if the characters were actually aware of them. For example, the idea that a barbarian can somehow “activate rage” and can only “fly into a rage” a certain specific number of times a day, every day? That would be pretty f$&%ing weird for characters to have any understanding of.

Now, this brings us around to a ridiculous line that lots of people like to draw in the sand between FLUFF and CRUNCH. Generally speaking, people refer to the stuff that we would call worldspeak as FLUFF and the stuff we would call gamespeak as CRUNCH. And then they drive themselves absolutely f$&%ing crazy by keeping those things separate and behaving as if FLUFF is artful and wonderful and CRUNCH is terrible and ruins games.

The truth is for MOST aspects of the game FLUFF and CRUNCH are two different ways of saying the same thing. I don’t give a f$&% how much you want to try to tell me hit points are an abstraction that don’t represent anything real in the world. Because bull f$&%ing s&%&! They exist in the world because characters can make choices based on them: whether to keep adventuring or rest, whether their friend needs healing, how much damage they’ve done to a monster and whether it’s worth changing targets. And giving yourself an aneurism trying to keep them separate is f$&%ing ludicrous.

If this seems like a ranty digression, well, it is. THAT’S LITERALLY WHAT I DO! But it will also have a very important point later. Remember it.

But What IS Information (Continued)?!

So, we have facts. Anything that can be known about the game or the world or – usually – both. But information isn’t just facts. At least not how I’m using it. A game includes A LOT of facts. Hell, there are three entire rule-books filled with facts, not to mention facts that come from setting books and from the adventure backstory and whatever information the GM has shared about the campaign world.

But information – at least the information we’re concerned about managing – information is facts that the GM DELIBERATELY shares DURING GAMEPLAY. And it is the deliberateness that’s important. Because the players learn lots of facts during gameplay BY ACCIDENT. For example, when a red dragon breathes fire at the players, they have learned the FACT that red dragons breathe fire. And when the red dragon takes half damage from a fireball spell, they have learned the FACT that red dragons are resistant to fire damage. And when an attack misses on a 17, but hits on an 18, they have learned the FACT that red dragons have an AC of 18 – or whatever, shut up and don’t fact check me, I don’t give a f$&%. But that isn’t a matter of information management.

Now, if the players – and we are so NOT getting into the bulls$&% metagaming argument again, take that s$%& elsewhere – if the players somehow know before their first encounter with a red dragon that red dragons breathe fire, that also isn’t information. And if the players guess, after seeing the red dragon breathe fire, that it’s probably immune to fire, that also isn’t information. The GM didn’t deliberately share those facts. The players either had them already from some other source or guessed them.

But while we’re on the subject, let’s talk about GMs and epistemophobia and why GMs are f$&%ing crazy control freaks.

Digression: GM Epistemophobia

Most GMs are control freaks. Now, I’m going to be kind and assume that most GMs aren’t malicious control freaks, even though I myself am a malicious control freak. Most GMs are trying to provide the best gaming experience they can. Mainly because they haven’t figured out that most players will play any goddamned thing and there’s no point spending ten hours on polish if the players will happily consume any old s$&%. But that’s just me.

Most GMs want to provide great gaming experiences. Fair enough. And when it comes to certain things, like mystery and challenge, they have some pretty f$&%ed up notions about what makes a game great. For example, most GMs are terrified of making things TOO EASY for their players. Because too easy equals boring. And since knowledge is power, any knowledge the players have will reduce the challenge of any given encounter. Thus, GMs are f$&%ing IRRATIONALLY terrified to let their players know anything. Like the AC of a given monster or how many hit points it has left or whether it is resistant to fire or whatever.

The fear is that the players will use that information to make optimal decisions and ruin the challenge of a good encounter. And that’s f$&%ing absurd. F$&%ING ABSURD. Because what really happens when players use information to make the best decisions is that THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT HOW SMART THEY ARE. A player who cleverly recognizes the troll’s weakness to fire and capitalizes on it doesn’t whine that the encounter was too easy. They celebrate. They say “wow, it sure is a good thing I’m so smart as to know that trolls are weak to fire and that I was prepared enough to have a fire spell or else that would have sucked.”

In short, when players USE information, they don’t feel bored. They feel smart. More important – MOST F$&%ING IMPORTANTLY – they feel like their choices have a direct impact on their chances for victory. Which is exactly what you want.

So, right now, I’m telling you this, if you take nothing else away from this article, take this away: drop your epistemophobia, your fear of knowledge and what your players will do if they have knowledge. Because I will tell you exactly what they will do: they will use that knowledge to feel like winners and have more fun. And that’s how players are supposed to feel.

But What IS Information (Concluded)?!

Okay, now, maybe I can finish this section without any further rants. Information – for my purposes here – are facts about the game or the world or both that the GM deliberately shares during game play to empower the players or enhance the game play experience. And doing so makes the game better in every f$&%ing way.

If the players learn that the monster terrorizing the village is a red dragon and then they go to the library and research red dragons, any facts they learn? THAT’S INFORMATION. That’s stuff the GM deliberately shared during gameplay to empower the players or enhance the gameplay experience.

Clarifications, Facts, Implications, and Clues

Now, let’s talk about the shape information can take in your game. Because, again, I LOVE classifying things. And in general, information can take three different forms in the game. Let’s talk about the difference between clarifications, implications, clues, and facts. And let me just warn you right now, I’m about to digress again. Here it comes…

Digression: The Importance of Clarification

First of all, let’s talk about a type of information that isn’t information at all. Let’s talk about clarifications. A clarification occurs when the GM provides additional details in gamespeak after a player takes some kind of action that results in a worldspeak discovery. What do I mean? Well, I mean something like this.

“Your firebolt spell explodes against the dragon’s flank, lightly singeing its scales. It seems to have had little effect. The dragon is resistant to fire damage and takes half damage from all fire-based attacks.”

That second part there? THAT’S A CLARIFICATION.

Here’s the f$&%ing deal: those are way more important than most GMs thing. Now some will disagree. Pompous GMs who spend all of their time up their own a$&es about story try to avoid gamespeak whenever possible because it “cheapens their art”. GMs who suffer from epistemophobia are terrified of gamespeak because they are terrified of what will happen if the players know actual statistics and mechanics. Those people are idiots.

Once the players have seen a mechanical effect in play and you have described it in world speak, CLARIFY IT IN GAMESPEAK so there is absolutely ZERO ambiguity. For example, some players might have interpreted the description of the firebolt above to mean that the dragon is IMMUNE to fire. And if all they have is fire spells, they might sit around doing nothing rather than participating and wasting ammo that might at least have some effect. THAT ISN’T F$&%ING FAIR.

The same goes for things like the plusses on a magic weapon. Once the players have swung the thing, tell them flat out the mechanical effect. WHY WOULDN’T YOU?!

Facts, Implications, and Clues (Continued and Hopefully Concluded)

As I said, information is deliberately shared facts about the game world that empower the players or improve the gameplay experience. Information can be anything from statistics that make a fight easier to new options in an encounter to leads that open the path to new scenes and encounters to the solutions to riddles that will render sphinxes powerless to context that explains why the world is behaving the way it is to thematic elements that make the game have a certain emotional feel. And information generally comes in two flavors: implications and facts.

Facts are things just stated outright. For example, the fact that a red dragon is resistant to fire or that the king is having an illicit affair he wants to cover up. Those are facts. The moment the players discover those bits of information, they are empowered. They can act on them. Simple as that.

Implications are more subtle. They have to be translated. They nudge the players toward a fact, but the players have to make some kind of logical leap. For example, the fact that the red dragon’s lair is inside a volcano implies that it is resistant to extreme temperatures. Likewise, the fact that it breathes fire also implies its resistance.

Even more subtle are clues. Clues are implications that have been broken apart. Any given clue, by itself, is incomplete. Several of them together add up to an implication. And that implication leads to a fact. For example, the following are clues that the king has been having a secret affair: the king has been sneaking out of the castle regularly, the king has been buying expensive women’s jewelry, the queen feels as if the king isn’t paying attention to her anymore, the king’s mood has changed recently, and so on.

Any fact can be shaved down into an implication. And any implication can be broken apart into clues. In fact, most of the art of designing good mysteries and puzzles is figuring out how to break down a fact into multiple clues and then hiding those clues.

Another F$&%ing Digression: On Player Skill

And now we get to one of the trickiest and most contentious aspects of information management in role-playing games: the question of player skill. Now, I know it’s normally my thing to say “look, other people are f$&%wits, let me tell you how it is and why people who disagree are stupid.” But on this particular issue, I have to admit, there isn’t a good right answer.

Here’s the deal: translating implications into facts and assembling clues into an implication and translating that into fact, that s$&% is utterly reliant on the brains of the players. Your players – NOT the characters – have to figure that s$&% out. And, at that point, it isn’t a matter of role-playing.

Now, me? I don’t have any problem at all with that. Because, honestly, everything in the game is translated through the brain of the player anyway. For example, the character’s tactical decisions in combat are all reliant on the PLAYER’S ability to play the mechanical game of combat. Resource management? The same. Clever ideas and plans? The same. Deciding where to go? What questions to ask? That’s all reliant on player skill anyway. And pretending it isn’t is really stupid.

But, I realize that there is another point of view. When the fact being translated or assembled is the solution to an encounter – like a riddle or puzzle – or the solution to an adventure – like a murder mystery – that’s much more all or nothing. When a player makes a dumb decision during combat, for example, they can usually recover from it. Or their friends can help. Or they can run away. One missed opportunity isn’t likely to turn a combat from victory to total party kill. But if the party needs to solve a riddle to win the adventure and they players can’t solve the riddle, there’s usually nothing they can do to mitigate that.

Now, note that the argument about being able to play a character smarter than yourself doesn’t come into this. That’s a stupid argument put forth by stupid people. Because, no you can’t. You can’t because YOU – the player – still make all of the decisions for your character and no amount of factual nudging is going to make those decisions any smarter than the ones you are capable of making. I don’t care about that s$&%. I’m talking purely about the structure of intellectual challenges as I said above. Seriously, don’t bring that “smarter character than the player crap” into my comments. I’m tired of it. I’m done.

Purely from a standpoint of the structure of intellectual challenges, I understand why some GMs will argue that players should be allowed to make skill checks or Intelligence checks to translate implications into facts OR to assemble clues if they are otherwise struggling. And structuring information as I do, it’s actually pretty easy. For example, you might set a DC for a particular skill or intelligence check to translate an implication into a fact. And to go from clues to a fact, you could have a DC that is reduced for each additional clue the players know and set a minimum number of clues.

For example, if there are five different distinct clues that would identify the murderer, you might start with the rule that the party must have at least three clues. Once they have three clues, if they don’t guess the murderer, you could roll a DC 25 Intelligence check to tell them the answer. If they gather a fourth clue, you could make another check, reducing the DC by 5 to 20. And if they find the final clue, the DC is reduced by 5 again to 15.

This is merely a failsafe against players not figuring things out for themselves and becoming frustrated. But, honestly, if that’s a problem in your group, I would suggest that maybe your players just don’t like these sort of intellectual challenges, they aren’t good at them, or you are bad at constructing them. Either way, the better solution is probably to stick with facts.

I will say, however, that the “get a clue” roll is an utterly terrible solution that just enhances boredom and frustration. The “get a clue” roll occurs when the players have all of the clues or implications and aren’t getting to the fact. So, the GM has them make an arbitrary Intelligence check and then gives them a “hint” to nudge them toward the solution. If one hint isn’t enough, the GM keeps providing more nudges. That protracted exercise sucks for everyone involved and, if your players don’t hate puzzles before you pull that s$&%, they certainly WILL after you’re done.

Facts, Implications, and Clues (Actually F$&%ing Concluded)

… actually, that was already concluded. So, I guess technically, that player skill thing wasn’t a digression. F$&% it. I’m leaving it and just moving on.

Impact and Ease of Use

When presenting information in your game – which is what the final part will be about, though at this rate, it make take two more f$&%ing parts – when presenting information in your game, you have the choice of simply handing your players FACTS or giving them IMPLICATIONS or making them assemble a bunch of CLUES.

Part of that decision will hinge on the purpose of the information. And that’s because if the information is delivered as an implication, there’s a chance the players won’t actually get the information because they can’t make the logical leap. And if the information is delivered as clues, the players may not be able to even assemble those clues. And that’s assuming they find all of the clues. Because clues can be scattered throughout the adventure.

Consider facts, for example. Facts don’t require anything special. Once the players have the fact, they can act on it. That means it’s instantly useful. They can make the choice, they can exercise the option, whatever. Fact? Bam. Useful. And that might seem great for the players, but it isn’t always as great as it appears. Imagine you hand the players a magic sword of dragon slaying immediately before sending them off to fight a dragon. The sword will instantly kill any dragon on any hit. The players go off, attack the dragon, and win. Yay for them, right? Except, how will the players feel about that victory? They will feel like you handed it to them. The same is true if the players face a riddle or puzzle or mystery and you hand them the solution.

And this, right here, shows one of the major trade-offs that is key to information management. You must weigh the IMPACT that the information will have on the game against the EASE with which the information can be acquired or used. If information is easy to use – as a fact is – it should have a low impact. Likewise, if the information is EASY to acquire, it should also have a LOW IMPACT. If the information is HARD to use, as is the case with a very weak implication or a pile of clues, it should have a HIGH IMPACT on the game. Likewise, if the information is HARD to acquire, say it’s gated behind a difficult encounter or lies at the end of a dangerous side path or it is broken into lots of clues scattered to the four winds, it should have a HIGH IMPACT.

So, what’s LOW IMPACT? First of all, the lowest impact information is interesting information. Themes, tone, motives, explanations, backstory. In fact, that’s part of the reason why most well-written adventures and stories break down all of that crap into clues and implications. Instead of just outright stating that the ruins are haunted, it’s far more interesting if the ruins are unnaturally cold and strange whispers can be heard in the corners and the shadows loom large and flames burn green or blue inside the ruins. But only PART of the reason. We’ll talk about the rest of the reasons in the next part.

Of MIDDLE IMPACT, and of course this is a spectrum, so there’s a range, of MIDDLE IMPACT is information that gives the players an edge. Information that lets them manage their resources better, for example, like monster strengths and weaknesses. Or that allows them to gain a bonus in a social interaction. Basically, information that allows them to make encounters easier. Beyond that is information that gives the players additional – and usually better – options in an encounter. For example, knowing that rats can be frightened off with fire or that goblins won’t fight if you take down the leader. Beyond that is information that allows the players to make choices about what obstacles to deal with. Such as information about which path in a dungeon is more dangerous or what challenges they might face down each path.

HIGH IMPACT information is the information that shuts down encounters completely, like the answer to the sphinx’s riddle or the knowledge necessary to blackmail the king without any possibility or failure. It also allows the players to completely bypass encounters, such as information about the secret door that leads directly to the boss monster’s bedroom. And, of course, by its nature, all necessary information is HIGH IMPACT information.

And that brings us down a pretty simply formula. Interesting information is Low Impact. Useful information is Middle to High Impact. And Necessary information is High Impact.

The End: A Good Starting Point

And with that, we have a solid conceptual framework for distributing information in your game. You can break down information by its purpose: Interesting, Useful, or Necessary. You can break it down by its shape: Facts, Implications, or Clues. And you can understand the balance between the Impact of the information and the Ease with which it can be acquired or used.

In short, boy we had fun today, didn’t we kids? We had a very distracted discussion about the shape information can take and how that shape affects its impact on the game. But we’re not done yet, are we. Because none of this actually tells you how to decide what information to put into your game, where to put it, and how to communicate it to your players.

But if you can’t wait, don’t worry because within the next 48 hours… BWAHAHAHAHA. No. I’m just f$&%ing with you. Come back next week. Or the one after.

Banner Patreon 800 x 100

18 thoughts on “Angry Information Management (Part 2): Facts, Implications, and Distractions

  1. I like reading your articles, but i have an advice for you (Maybe a useless one).
    Maybe you dont give a F*§°£, and that’s ok, but i’ll write my opnion anyway.
    I find most of your thought and articles in general pretty interesting and useful, and I think i’m improving at GM since i started reading your thoughts, but sometimes I find that your articles have too much rambling in the beginning. You often do ping-pong flights just to get to the point.

    I think that it would be much more enjoyable reading your articles if they were a little (really, just a little) more straight to the point.
    I just found you a couple of days ago, and since then I read a lot of your articles. I’ll make you an example: On the article :”Let’s Start at the very end”. You start this article by talking about Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music. I can get that an article has the need of some sort of introduction, but that was very long, and a bit boring IMO. I think that if you just went straight for the point of the article, the article himself would’ve been more enoyable to read (actually i was a bit tired when i was reading the article, and i’m not gonna lie, i just fell asleep in front of my monitor like a doucheB§#!. Narcolepsy come at me!)
    Keep up the good work!
    PS: Sorry for my english, if there is any error (and there are for sure), I tried my best 🙂
    PPS: I know the article i mentioned is about 2 years old. I’m sorry but i’m digging in your website just from 2 days and i’m recovering some old but gold-en articles. I dont know if newer articles improved in that way, so the entire point of this comment may be pointless :). in that case I apologize.

    • Top tip: skip the intros if you don’t enjoy them 🙂 the articles all have an obvious start after the long rambling introduction ™

    • I enjoy reading the full articles, rambles at all – the rambling is often relevant to the content of the articles and if not, I usually find it enjoyable nonetheless.

      But my favourite thing to do is consolidate the ideas from Angry’s articles into my own words to keep in my OneNote. So I will fully read the article, mull it over, then re-write the “important bits” into my OneNote. Sometimes I even make it into tables and charts.

      It’s a great way to absorb the information and take it to heart, and apply it in your own campaigns.

  2. I have the feeling that in the last paragraphs there is a sleight of hand. First HIGH IMPACT info is described as stuff that lets you bypass encounters. Then necessary is elevated to HIGH IMPACT information. But is it? I think there is a fundamental difference between defining it as “making the adventure a lot easier” first and then changing it around to “information you cannot complete the adventure without”. At least it reads like that but may not have been intended like that.

    • I read it more as a list of types of high impact information. Shure, knowledge of a secret door right into the villain’s bedroom that lets you bypass half the encounters is high impact, but so is the piece of information that gates half the adventure. If the information is a win condition, isn’t it obviously high impact? Perhapse the highest impact? I kind of thought it was implicit in the choice of words – the information is high impact because it has a high impact on the game. On a side note, it makes me think of the mega dungeon monday a little while ago about the gates that dictate how the adventure flows into different sections of the dungeon, and how opening some gates causes major events to occur. I would say high impact information can be similar to those gates. It is like a key that has some high impact on what is happening , how you will proceed, or whether you can win at all. It can be a reward for hard work uncovering a secret path, it can completely change the dynamic of the adventure, or it can be an important win condition that completely gates moving on. Like figuring out the name of the killer, or learning the ancient children’s rhyme that contains all of the clues for opening the combination lock in the barbarians tomb where the great evil is eminating from. If you learn the rhyme, you can open the door and slay the evil, and zombie barbarians will stop eating villagers. That’s pretty high impact I think.

    • Imho, it is very difficult to dissect and explain these concepts which have been done by categories (see part 1) but are really spectrums (as Angry mentioned.) Not surprisingly they get confusing as a result. But I find the exercise and point of views interesting and entertaining.

  3. From what I can tell, 5e Int checks aren’t really supposed to be for determining if you put together information already given in a use way. They’re for when the DM has determined that (certain kinds) of information isn’t going to be automatically successfully gained, and a random resolution of the question as to if the information is gained is needed.

    I mean, look at the investigation examples. They’re all immediate determination of gaining a clue, implication, or fact. Ditto with Lore, except it’s important to note that they’re all about recalling something the character already knew. Not for determining if they ever knew it. Which, incidentally, means Intelligence (no proficiency) checks are perfect for when a Player can’t recall something, and there is a question as to if the PC may or may not remember it.

    So it’s possible to play a PC that has better mental acuity and recall than you do as a player.

    To be absolutely clear, one thing I’m not saying is that a DM shouldn’t use his judgement as to if information should automatically be given. 5e encourage that kind of thinking about resolution. In your case specifically Angry, you seem to lean in the direction of MOST or ALL information should be given automatically.

    • I think it depends if you want to reward your player for choosing to spend points into INT or lore. If you do then you must punish them for not doing it, because if you don’t punish them then you’re just allowing them to waste points into skills that they should spend elsewhere, which empowers players who didn’t waste those points. And it sucks.
      I think I read somewhere on this site that it sucks to reward or punish players for choices that they’ve made maybe years ago about character development and I kind of agree with that.
      So, I’d rather let the characters handle the physics of the game while the players deal with the thinking and knowledge stuff, and if you want to be fair and not waste time on these things you should probably do the same.

      • That’s true for any ability check, class feature or spell. How useful it is depends on how often it comes up in a game. But for some reason, people want to make this false distinction in the case of D&D’s 5e Intelligence and Charisma scores.

        D&D 5e Intelligence doesn’t appear to be designed to override a player’s ability to think. It’s designed to complement it, in situations where there is a question of if the PC can remember something or figure out an immediate clue. Or to use Angry’s terms, clue, implication or fact. If a player knows something or declares something already, the DM doesn’t need to call for a dice roll, because there is no question of success or not.

        D&D 5e Charisma works the same way. If the player can come up with a persuasive argument for the PC to make that results in an automatic success, the DM can determine that no check is needed. If there is a question of success based on the declared approach & intent.

        • In the case of intelligence making a roll to remember something that the player should know because you gave it to them before and you want to skip the part where they spent hours checking their notes, or you don’t want them to fail is arguably ok.
          Making them roll intelligence to solve a riddle that you spent time to build with a dice roll is crappy design if you ask me, and what’s more fun for the players? Rolling a dice to solve a riddle, or actually solving a riddle?
          Intelligence already give bonus to skills and additionnal spells I think, that’s good enough for a characteristic if you ask me.

          Charisma is the same, I have charisma in my game, I don’t use it to solve interactions, I use it to know who the NPC will preferably talk to, if there’s a chance that they feel charmed and to automatically bargain with shopkeepers. A character can be charismatic as hell, but if the player behind doesn’t talk or only says stupid things, his charisma won’t help.
          I mean, I love rolling dices (I’ve been called random addict by Angry) but if your game can be completely solved just by rolling dices then the players WILL only roll dices. If you’re good with that then keep it up but you won’t find any encouragement for it on this site.

          • “making a roll to remember something that the player should know because you gave it to them before and you want to skip the part where they spent hours checking their notes, or you don’t want them to fail is arguably ok.”

            If you don’t want them to fail, why make them roll? My personal view is that an intelligence roll should be used where a character reasonably might know something that the player doesn’t know yet. Basically the check says “If you roll well, your reward is a small piece of exposition which is useful”. If I’ve already given the player a piece of information, I don’t make them roll to remember it – I am happy to prompt them.

          • I go for something in the middle, I think. Certainly with interaction scenes I generally assume there will be a dice roll to accomplish something meaningful through interaction with an NPC, but rather than set the DC for that roll in advance I will wait and see what approach the players take and set the DC based on how well that approach suits the NPC in question. If they just say “I try and persuade him” (or worse just bark “persuasion” and throw the die at my face) then the DC is unlikely to be less than 35 regardless of any other factors – or more likely I just request that they give me some idea of what the character is actually saying. If it’s the other end of the spectrum and the player comes up with something that I just can’t argue with then there might not be a check at all, more power to them, but it’s relatively unlikely. Ultimately I’m handling it the same way I handle every check, as outlined by Angry: look at what the PC is attempting, decide if it’s possible to both succeed and fail, and if so then decide on the DC. The player’s approach is part of the first step, so there’s no need for advantage or disadvantage or bonuses, just factor it into your decision on the DC.

            I at least try to always handle Intelligence checks the same way.

  4. Useful information that can be treated as part of the gameplay like you would a +1 longsword, I find relatively easy to deal with. Ditto necessary information like the location of a dungeon. I find the information I struggle with most is the kind that just… IS the story of the adventure. I don’t mean necessary information, since it’s often possible for the players to win without it, and it might not even help them win, so I guess it’s interesting information. But to me it’s the stuff that feels necessary for the story and I find it really hard to get across. For example, if I’ve written a scenario in which a Drow priestess whose son the PCs killed in a previous adventure is out for revenge, and has recruited a gang of giants and ogres to wreak havoc in order to get the PCs’ attention and draw them into a trap so she can kill them, the way that might well play out at the table is: the PCs are hired to hunt down a gang of ogres and orcs, they do so, and underneath their lair they find a Drow priestess who attacks them, so they kill her too. The end. The adventure is resolved because the conflict is resolved and the villain’s plan is foiled. But the players haven’t really experienced the story I intended for them, because I failed to convey information that was necessary for that.

    That’s not the best example (I used it because it happens to be the adventure I’m planning now) because the Drow is after revenge so she’s quite likely to shout “this is for my son whom you murdered two years ago!” But the fact that that piece of crap is a relatively mild example of exposition compared to the kind I often have to resort to in order to convey just simply what the story of the adventure is, suggests I am in need of some systematic way of getting such information across.

    I look forward to the next article, but I do feel this kind of “well that’s the story” information is something you haven’t exactly touched on so far. Not to disparage this article though, it’s still very insightful.

  5. On GM Epistemophobia. “Like the AC of a given monster or how many hit points it has left or whether it is resistant to fire or whatever. The fear is that the players will use that information to make optimal decisions and ruin the challenge of a good encounter. And that’s f$&%ing absurd.”

    If you design encounters by the book, you may come to the conclusion that I did that if your players DON’T know this kind of information, your combat encounter becomes more difficult than it was supposed to be. And this could result in a TPK. Which, DM, is always YOUR FAULT, always. See previous long ago Angry article with a canard about ranking player deaths.

    So I give my players implications about AC and HP in the opening round, and give them facts in the second round. And if I designed the combat right, the winner of the fight should be obvious by the third round unless the combat is already over. That’s the goal, anyway.

Comments are closed.