I love your down-to-earth, no-bullshit style. You have got to be the most unpretentious DM out there, one who actually understands that this is a game being played by real people, and your practical tips are really helpful for getting over any overly optimistic expectations we might have about how our games might go.
Information is the lifeblood og the game. This particular advice had become a mantra for me: "at any given time the players understand about 50% of what's going on".
I _think_ I heard this tip from Dungeon Dudes (or maybe I heard it from Mike, I forget), and the tip was, "Don't make red herrings or false leads. The players will make their own false leads all by themselves." And after seeing it happen with my players with one of the prewritten modules I ran, I have taken that tip to heart when I set up an adventure. 😁
I've run a few mysteries or detective-style encounters that I thought were reasonably clever. But honestly, the possibilities that my players came up with as they tried to get to the bottom of them absolutely blew my mind. So creative and interesting that I wish I had thought of them myself. I barely have to do anything more than throw out a bunch of clues and watch them go wild. They usually end up in the right place, more or less.
Ran a sort of murder mystery involving a poker game, a bearded devil, and a shifty mayor. As they are all knew players, I really had to try to keep describing the same things to get them to connect that each murder is connected. For example, they end up in the basement see the table set for six, but told of five friends who play weekly. The puzzled look on their faces told me I had to kinda steer my newer players as opposed to them just making choices freely. It was funny.
This was something I learned recently as a new DM. Having side convos out of session where I actively summarize what the players know, what their viable options could be, and whatever information I think will equip them to do the best they can has become something of a habit for me, and I think it’s a good habit. It makes sure I’m on the same page as my players in terms of backstory and plot points, it prepares them for potential decisions down the line, and it makes it so much easier to prep since I know what my players are thinking about.
All very good points, which I mostly agree with, because I've been there, done that, and learned those lessons (which also seems to be true for most of your commenters so far); but, thinking back, I don't remember even half of what you just said, partly because none of its new information to me so there's nothing new for my brain to chew on, but also because the delivery was very quick, clipped, and dry, jumping from one point to the next, as if you were reading a prepared statement or parsing bullet points. I feel that, if you want newer DM's, who have yet to learn these lessons on their own, to gain from your hard won wisdom, you'd be better served by breaking the separate points up into their own videos, providing more detail about exactly what you mean, along with concrete examples and how to rectify the situation. I remember, way back when, a player had his character jump down a mine shaft, and I'm like "Uh, are you sure?" and he's like "Yeah." So I'm "Your character plummets to his doom (take 20d6, knocking him below -10). Make a new character." Weeks later, when I'm talking to the player, I find out he thought it was only 10-20' and he could hit the ground running (because he'd heard one of their potential rescue'es being beaten and berated) and I'm like "Oh No.... It was like 200', you needed ropes and spikes it would have been a whole climbing challenge" The first time I realized a character death was entirely my fault because of miscommunication and misunderstanding, not that I have any idea what I said that gave the player the wrong impression; but it could have been avoided if I'd simply asked why are you jumping into a shaft that extends down beyond the range of your torch (or infravision); and since, I've pretty much understood that whenever a player is doing something that I think is an obviously stupid choice, its probably due to some misunderstanding of the situation.
To add to this: I have started playing pictionary after sets with my players. Getting them to draw monsters I have described, battlemaps I have described in theatre of the mind etc and comparing them to my own. Not once has a player gotten all the details 'right'. Sometimes they're close, sometimes they're wildly far away from what I had imagined. I have used this to launchpad different approaches to description to help all my players get on board. highly recommend this exercise at your own table.
My favorite piece of this is the reminder that the characters know things that the players don't. Tell the fighter, "The way the troll swings that axe around like it weighs nothing tells you that it's immensely strong and could probably kill you with a single swipe." Tell the rogue, "You've worked with a lot of con artists - this guy's story seems well-rehearsed. You're pretty sure he's lying." Let the characters' areas of expertise pay off, so they can feel badass while getting the information they need..
That was good advice. I've struggled with making my own clues and plot too obscure in the effort to have the players feel more rewarded when they uncover or connect the dots for themselves. But my players are normal people, not trained investigators or detectives. I'm finding that trying to sense what the players want and them just giving it to them is way better. For example if the players are desperately searching a room for traps, why not have them find one even if you hadn't planned it? They're looking because they want the feeling of achievement and power when they correctly engage with your world. Player's engagement should always be rewarded in your game with ways for them to impact the world and story.
I've experienced this plenty of times as GM but wow are some players way worse at this than others. I've adopted a lot of what you're taking about, taken from my own day job as a college instructor, where I explicitly recap lots of material so that the students can clearly understand the connections of today's material to last time's. It really helps a lot. It's even more necessary in an online environment.
This, 100% I frequently use the phrase, "Your character lives in this world. They'd know this..." I'll also wave them off of things they're clearly not ready for yet. I don't even mince words on those.
May? I would say WILL from my experience:p bit I agree 100% "You look at a huge hulking monster you get a feeling that he could crash each of you with a single blow" is a description I often use if a monster is meant to be for scaring them rather than just another fight"
Love this advice. I think it's valuable to emphasize that whenever possible, we should be telling the players what their PCs perceive as opposed to simply telling the players what is happening. The latter should be an absolutely last resort.
I remember a course at work on public speaking where they had analysed what people took in. It was mostly body language and tone the actual words barely registered at all. I think this is even more true for a D&D table. They'll pick up the tone and danger if you express it well in your voice and posture but they rarely remember more than one thing that you said was in the room with them. It's why they spend the whole time looking at the map and their character sheet trying to work out where they are and what to do. This is not their fault and it is not because they are stupid and like me you probably don't really take in half of what they say either.
That actually happened when I was running a adventure module. In it the party is trying to buy this meteorite from this Dwarf and one of the items used by a wizard was this map of a dwarven vault. The players got so invested in that little info and said " we could totally do that for you as a quest for the item" there was no actual vault in the adventure but I made a quick one for them. It's crazy funny and cool what players will gravitate to.
Its sooo true! I held beack wasy to much and the Progress was so slow. When we took a vacation break, and i run a oneshot for 2 of my group and i playef more openly, we had a blast. So go on and give, dont hold back. Good video as usual!
Yes I agree 100% with your assessment of too much vs too little information. I once played a game where the DM was so painfully vague all the time. He could never answer a question directly even if the character would have the answer. He always answered with "It SEEMS LIKE". It Seems like the item is magic. Is it or isn't it? It seems like they are attacking, it seems like you disarmed the trap, its seems like you're poisoned, it seems like they're watching you. So frustrating WTF. If he wasn't being vague he spoke in riddles. "Where is the Chapel - plot location", "its by the third hill when facing the setting sun". Oh come on, every question on every topic is answered with a riddle? What was supposed to be a campaign by that DM became a One Shot, enough of that cr@p.
Using the Lazy DM secrets and clues have helped me a lot in giving my players more information. Now I just need to curate my list a little more by not letting those lead to places they shouldn't be for their level. Thank you for all the excellent and helpful advice.
Mike... It's like you're in my head. Two sessions ago I straight up told the players how the last 8 levels of the game are going to play out and they dug it. Now they have made an informed decision about how they'd like the game to play out rather than stumbling along. I'm not sure it's a strategy I'd incorporate at all levels of play but certainly in tiers 3 and 4 when the PCs start being able to take on "any job they want" I think it shines.
Great advice!! I try to go out of my way to remind players what they’re doing & what’s going on around their character. They zone out way more than we probably realize. :)
My favorite thing with red herrings is to throw several hooks, and if they get excited about one of them, suddenly the rest are all devious traps and the one they went after is the cleverly hidden real path and they saw past the deception. Alternatively, one of the hooks gets them close to the truth, but not as close to another hook. It gives the feeling of deception without wasting time!
Regarding giving out false information, particularly in response to a failed test, I think it's acceptable to give players incorrect info, as long as gets them into new, fun, trouble. A GM shouldn't send players on a wild goose hunt, or set them up for a surprise TPK, but it's fair to have them confront a new obstacle. If the PCs being wrong serves to amp up the stakes or make a conflict more interesting, then let them be wrong.
Great advice. I think players aren't even retaining half of the information and can you blame them? The warriors are deciding what to hit, the role players are thinking of what to say in character, and the puzzle solvers are still trying to figure out the magic statue in the last room. Of course they missed the clue hidden in the elven tapestry.
I need a player's version of this video. I wish several of my players were more curious about the encounters I provide. Lately, I feel like a tour guide while GMing. "To your right isare small critters playing in a waterfall that tumbles over light-catching crystals... To your left is an undead dinosaur threatening a family... And overhead a magical airship plummets down and crashes nearby... Oh, so none of you want to get off the tour bus to investigate???" 😢
I recently ran a session that I think went a little poorly in some areas for my standards, and after watching this I can pinpoint several issues simply tied to not giving my players enough information. It’s fun to leave clues and small details and hints for your players to pick up on and feel smart, but you sometimes just need to be a bit more clear and direct, or your players will end up confused and possibly frustrated, or missing things they shouldn’t
Nailed it, but here is a thought about the opposite side: Shouldn´t the advice also be given for all the players?? I´m so often reminding my group that they as players have to tell everything important what´s going on with their character/ideas and plans also to the other players in order to find the right decisions especially if they have special goals or knowlege!!
The occasional red herring can be a useful tool in developing the story and be a good laugh for the players, but don't let it go too long before the PCs realize it. I also agree that the players will create their own red herrings without any prompting from the GM, so use them sparingly.
Show not tell is more a rule for players role-playing characters for me. If you take time to describe stuff players will look more closely at anything presented than a vague description. Telling not showing is a must for the GM.
Hi mike, this is a great video. I am struggling with something related to this, In order to avoid spoken walls of text I like to break up my descriptions between player actions; a form of tossing the ball to the players. It’s a bit stilted and from your video I can see that I am assuming there is only one obvious action - eg enter the city whose walls I have just described - but I need to state that to the players.
Besides telling players what their characters see and hear, thell them what they FEEL. Use adjectives. Is the monster scary? Is the NPC acting weird? Is this artifact oddly anachronistic? Is the NPC beig rude? The players might not realize, but the characters do!
Strongly disagree. Suggesting emotions is fine, but the player's character is the players only autonomy in the game and dictating how the character feels is the player's perogative, not the DM's.
This is probably good advice, especially for newer players who are still learning. I feel that if you lead them too much, players will likely let you know when they need more of a challenge. No one wants to play a game that is too easy.
Here is a fun thing to do: tell the player what is going on, then tell the player that his character doesn't see it. The character's (not the player's) preconceptions are coloring their world view sufficiently so the character "just doesn't get it".
I’m on the fence about this. I think it can be easily taken too far. As a player, I’m disappointed when certain info is just handed to me, rather than given time for me to discover it. The mysteries (and solving of them), are some of my favorite parts of D&D. I had a DM who would hand out info I hadn’t asked for and it character clearly wouldn’t know about an area I was in or NPC I was interacting with and it just kind of killed the mood for me. I know that’s not what you’re advocating for here, but I feel plenty of DMs could certainly interpret your advice this way. Now, the DM part of me definitely finds this useful food for thought, though. I’ve certainly had some sessions where my players were more frustrated than was fun by the lack of info they uncovered. I’ll definitely keep this in mind in future games. I would just caution people to not take it too far ;)
I think there is a fine line between showing and telling. If I'm discribing how a ruined castle looks like I'm showing not telling. If I explain why the castle is ruined I'm telling. And I don't want to spoonfeed my players. They should work for their success. At least a bit.
Box-text encounter/location descriptions were one of the worst innovations of module design. They're intended as a crutch for the GM to be able to give a dramatic, interesting description. But when a GM goes into that "narrator voice" I just can't pay attention. Instead... as the GM, you need to know what is going on, what the PCs can see/hear/smell/feel/taste/sense psychically. So, just tell them, like you are talking to your friends. "There's this here and that there, and this is going on. And you notice this odd thingy over there." Bullet points beat boxed text 111% of the time. And importatn question isn the GM arsenal: "Are you sure?" Followed by a reminder of why their _character_ may not be so sure about doing that, because the player is probably doing something stupid or crazy because the missed some detail. Assume that anything that should be obvious to the PCs is, well, obvious to the PCs. This means if a player does "something stupid" that their character would obviously know doesn't make sense, instead of making the player roll 10 saves against point for sticking their hand in the box of poisonous vipers to pick up the golden chalice, you say "Are you sure you want to stick your hand in that box of deadly poisonous snakes?" Player: "Snakes? what snakes? I must've missed when you said that bit. No! I don't put my hand in there. LoL!"
Sometime it's also the players fault. When they trigger the first trap and it's harmless, the logic should be that the place is trapped, whether all the trap are deadly or not is irrelevant, as they should try to avoid triggering them. Mine didn't, they simply walked or opened the doors and didn't check for traps. Most of the time they didn't checked and when they did there wasn't any over there. They did find one once and avoided it but later ran back the same way in a hurry, so I made them roll to see if they dodge the trap. 1 did, the other didn't and died. Had they disarmed it, he would have survived.
I love your down-to-earth, no-bullshit style. You have got to be the most unpretentious DM out there, one who actually understands that this is a game being played by real people, and your practical tips are really helpful for getting over any overly optimistic expectations we might have about how our games might go.
Thank you!
Information is the lifeblood og the game. This particular advice had become a mantra for me: "at any given time the players understand about 50% of what's going on".
I _think_ I heard this tip from Dungeon Dudes (or maybe I heard it from Mike, I forget), and the tip was, "Don't make red herrings or false leads. The players will make their own false leads all by themselves." And after seeing it happen with my players with one of the prewritten modules I ran, I have taken that tip to heart when I set up an adventure. 😁
I've run a few mysteries or detective-style encounters that I thought were reasonably clever. But honestly, the possibilities that my players came up with as they tried to get to the bottom of them absolutely blew my mind. So creative and interesting that I wish I had thought of them myself. I barely have to do anything more than throw out a bunch of clues and watch them go wild. They usually end up in the right place, more or less.
Ran a sort of murder mystery involving a poker game, a bearded devil, and a shifty mayor. As they are all knew players, I really had to try to keep describing the same things to get them to connect that each murder is connected. For example, they end up in the basement see the table set for six, but told of five friends who play weekly. The puzzled look on their faces told me I had to kinda steer my newer players as opposed to them just making choices freely. It was funny.
This was something I learned recently as a new DM. Having side convos out of session where I actively summarize what the players know, what their viable options could be, and whatever information I think will equip them to do the best they can has become something of a habit for me, and I think it’s a good habit. It makes sure I’m on the same page as my players in terms of backstory and plot points, it prepares them for potential decisions down the line, and it makes it so much easier to prep since I know what my players are thinking about.
Get one of your players to write notes for everyone-- so handy to know what they actually clocked jn a session.
All very good points, which I mostly agree with, because I've been there, done that, and learned those lessons (which also seems to be true for most of your commenters so far); but, thinking back, I don't remember even half of what you just said, partly because none of its new information to me so there's nothing new for my brain to chew on, but also because the delivery was very quick, clipped, and dry, jumping from one point to the next, as if you were reading a prepared statement or parsing bullet points. I feel that, if you want newer DM's, who have yet to learn these lessons on their own, to gain from your hard won wisdom, you'd be better served by breaking the separate points up into their own videos, providing more detail about exactly what you mean, along with concrete examples and how to rectify the situation. I remember, way back when, a player had his character jump down a mine shaft, and I'm like "Uh, are you sure?" and he's like "Yeah." So I'm "Your character plummets to his doom (take 20d6, knocking him below -10). Make a new character." Weeks later, when I'm talking to the player, I find out he thought it was only 10-20' and he could hit the ground running (because he'd heard one of their potential rescue'es being beaten and berated) and I'm like "Oh No.... It was like 200', you needed ropes and spikes it would have been a whole climbing challenge" The first time I realized a character death was entirely my fault because of miscommunication and misunderstanding, not that I have any idea what I said that gave the player the wrong impression; but it could have been avoided if I'd simply asked why are you jumping into a shaft that extends down beyond the range of your torch (or infravision); and since, I've pretty much understood that whenever a player is doing something that I think is an obviously stupid choice, its probably due to some misunderstanding of the situation.
Yes! Thank you!
To add to this: I have started playing pictionary after sets with my players. Getting them to draw monsters I have described, battlemaps I have described in theatre of the mind etc and comparing them to my own. Not once has a player gotten all the details 'right'.
Sometimes they're close, sometimes they're wildly far away from what I had imagined. I have used this to launchpad different approaches to description to help all my players get on board. highly recommend this exercise at your own table.
My favorite piece of this is the reminder that the characters know things that the players don't. Tell the fighter, "The way the troll swings that axe around like it weighs nothing tells you that it's immensely strong and could probably kill you with a single swipe." Tell the rogue, "You've worked with a lot of con artists - this guy's story seems well-rehearsed. You're pretty sure he's lying." Let the characters' areas of expertise pay off, so they can feel badass while getting the information they need..
That was good advice. I've struggled with making my own clues and plot too obscure in the effort to have the players feel more rewarded when they uncover or connect the dots for themselves. But my players are normal people, not trained investigators or detectives.
I'm finding that trying to sense what the players want and them just giving it to them is way better. For example if the players are desperately searching a room for traps, why not have them find one even if you hadn't planned it? They're looking because they want the feeling of achievement and power when they correctly engage with your world.
Player's engagement should always be rewarded in your game with ways for them to impact the world and story.
I've experienced this plenty of times as GM but wow are some players way worse at this than others. I've adopted a lot of what you're taking about, taken from my own day job as a college instructor, where I explicitly recap lots of material so that the students can clearly understand the connections of today's material to last time's. It really helps a lot. It's even more necessary in an online environment.
This, 100%
I frequently use the phrase, "Your character lives in this world. They'd know this..."
I'll also wave them off of things they're clearly not ready for yet. I don't even mince words on those.
Great video Sly, keep it up
I had to learn this the hard way and it’s solid advice that new DMs should get.
Brilliant advice. The “fear of a black dragon” podcast talks about “talkative NPCs”. Lets get some information to the players and go from there
May? I would say WILL from my experience:p bit I agree 100% "You look at a huge hulking monster you get a feeling that he could crash each of you with a single blow" is a description I often use if a monster is meant to be for scaring them rather than just another fight"
Love this advice. I think it's valuable to emphasize that whenever possible, we should be telling the players what their PCs perceive as opposed to simply telling the players what is happening. The latter should be an absolutely last resort.
Damn!! Just after I ran a session where I forgot this, this video pops up on my tl again!!!
I remember a course at work on public speaking where they had analysed what people took in. It was mostly body language and tone the actual words barely registered at all.
I think this is even more true for a D&D table. They'll pick up the tone and danger if you express it well in your voice and posture but they rarely remember more than one thing that you said was in the room with them. It's why they spend the whole time looking at the map and their character sheet trying to work out where they are and what to do.
This is not their fault and it is not because they are stupid and like me you probably don't really take in half of what they say either.
Information is super critical.
That actually happened when I was running a adventure module. In it the party is trying to buy this meteorite from this Dwarf and one of the items used by a wizard was this map of a dwarven vault. The players got so invested in that little info and said " we could totally do that for you as a quest for the item" there was no actual vault in the adventure but I made a quick one for them. It's crazy funny and cool what players will gravitate to.
Definitely going to work on doing this more often!
Its sooo true! I held beack wasy to much and the Progress was so slow. When we took a vacation break, and i run a oneshot for 2 of my group and i playef more openly, we had a blast.
So go on and give, dont hold back.
Good video as usual!
Amazing advice
Yes I agree 100% with your assessment of too much vs too little information.
I once played a game where the DM was so painfully vague all the time. He could never answer a question directly even if the character would have the answer. He always answered with "It SEEMS LIKE". It Seems like the item is magic. Is it or isn't it? It seems like they are attacking, it seems like you disarmed the trap, its seems like you're poisoned, it seems like they're watching you. So frustrating WTF.
If he wasn't being vague he spoke in riddles. "Where is the Chapel - plot location", "its by the third hill when facing the setting sun". Oh come on, every question on every topic is answered with a riddle?
What was supposed to be a campaign by that DM became a One Shot, enough of that cr@p.
ahhh. mathew mercer saying 'it seems like' is a drinking game
Using the Lazy DM secrets and clues have helped me a lot in giving my players more information.
Now I just need to curate my list a little more by not letting those lead to places they shouldn't be for their level.
Thank you for all the excellent and helpful advice.
Mike... It's like you're in my head. Two sessions ago I straight up told the players how the last 8 levels of the game are going to play out and they dug it. Now they have made an informed decision about how they'd like the game to play out rather than stumbling along.
I'm not sure it's a strategy I'd incorporate at all levels of play but certainly in tiers 3 and 4 when the PCs start being able to take on "any job they want" I think it shines.
Just backed you on Patreon. Seriously, Mike, everything you share helps me in one way or another. I really appreciate you!❤
Thank you!
Great advice!! I try to go out of my way to remind players what they’re doing & what’s going on around their character. They zone out way more than we probably realize. :)
Thank you, really helpful advice! I wish all the DMs I’ve played with could watch this too!
My favorite thing with red herrings is to throw several hooks, and if they get excited about one of them, suddenly the rest are all devious traps and the one they went after is the cleverly hidden real path and they saw past the deception. Alternatively, one of the hooks gets them close to the truth, but not as close to another hook. It gives the feeling of deception without wasting time!
Regarding giving out false information, particularly in response to a failed test, I think it's acceptable to give players incorrect info, as long as gets them into new, fun, trouble. A GM shouldn't send players on a wild goose hunt, or set them up for a surprise TPK, but it's fair to have them confront a new obstacle. If the PCs being wrong serves to amp up the stakes or make a conflict more interesting, then let them be wrong.
This is all GREAT advice!
Great advice. I think players aren't even retaining half of the information and can you blame them? The warriors are deciding what to hit, the role players are thinking of what to say in character, and the puzzle solvers are still trying to figure out the magic statue in the last room.
Of course they missed the clue hidden in the elven tapestry.
I need a player's version of this video. I wish several of my players were more curious about the encounters I provide. Lately, I feel like a tour guide while GMing. "To your right isare small critters playing in a waterfall that tumbles over light-catching crystals... To your left is an undead dinosaur threatening a family... And overhead a magical airship plummets down and crashes nearby... Oh, so none of you want to get off the tour bus to investigate???" 😢
Yes DMs have to spell out what they expect the PCs to know
I always error on the side more information
I recently ran a session that I think went a little poorly in some areas for my standards, and after watching this I can pinpoint several issues simply tied to not giving my players enough information. It’s fun to leave clues and small details and hints for your players to pick up on and feel smart, but you sometimes just need to be a bit more clear and direct, or your players will end up confused and possibly frustrated, or missing things they shouldn’t
Nailed it, but here is a thought about the opposite side: Shouldn´t the advice also be given for all the players?? I´m so often reminding my group that they as players have to tell everything important what´s going on with their character/ideas and plans also to the other players in order to find the right decisions especially if they have special goals or knowlege!!
I always see D&D as a weird game of cherrades
The occasional red herring can be a useful tool in developing the story and be a good laugh for the players, but don't let it go too long before the PCs realize it. I also agree that the players will create their own red herrings without any prompting from the GM, so use them sparingly.
sometimes, though, their misinterpretation of what you thought turns out to be better and you can just to roll with it
He brought up gandalf he knows whats up 👌👌
Show not tell is more a rule for players role-playing characters for me. If you take time to describe stuff players will look more
closely at anything presented than a vague description. Telling not showing is a must for the GM.
Hi mike, this is a great video. I am struggling with something related to this, In order to avoid spoken walls of text I like to break up my descriptions between player actions; a form of tossing the ball to the players. It’s a bit stilted and from your video I can see that I am assuming there is only one obvious action - eg enter the city whose walls I have just described - but I need to state that to the players.
Besides telling players what their characters see and hear, thell them what they FEEL. Use adjectives. Is the monster scary? Is the NPC acting weird? Is this artifact oddly anachronistic? Is the NPC beig rude? The players might not realize, but the characters do!
Strongly disagree. Suggesting emotions is fine, but the player's character is the players only autonomy in the game and dictating how the character feels is the player's perogative, not the DM's.
I disagree. I had a DM tell me that my water genasi was embarrassed to go swimming. ...Wut?
This is probably good advice, especially for newer players who are still learning. I feel that if you lead them too much, players will likely let you know when they need more of a challenge. No one wants to play a game that is too easy.
Here is a fun thing to do: tell the player what is going on, then tell the player that his character doesn't see it. The character's (not the player's) preconceptions are coloring their world view sufficiently so the character "just doesn't get it".
I’m on the fence about this. I think it can be easily taken too far. As a player, I’m disappointed when certain info is just handed to me, rather than given time for me to discover it. The mysteries (and solving of them), are some of my favorite parts of D&D. I had a DM who would hand out info I hadn’t asked for and it character clearly wouldn’t know about an area I was in or NPC I was interacting with and it just kind of killed the mood for me. I know that’s not what you’re advocating for here, but I feel plenty of DMs could certainly interpret your advice this way.
Now, the DM part of me definitely finds this useful food for thought, though. I’ve certainly had some sessions where my players were more frustrated than was fun by the lack of info they uncovered. I’ll definitely keep this in mind in future games.
I would just caution people to not take it too far ;)
Great advice, this is why I basically dont use perception checks when I run 5e
I think there is a fine line between showing and telling. If I'm discribing how a ruined castle looks like I'm showing not telling. If I explain why the castle is ruined I'm telling. And I don't want to spoonfeed my players. They should work for their success. At least a bit.
Basically: Don't forget top tell them what their character notices, as they may not have noticed it.
So, how do I incorporate Grimtooth's Traps into this philosophy 🤔
I thought Dungeons & Dragons is just 20 questions with dice….
How high is the ceiling in this room?
Did the monster seem to be hurt by the attack?
"Who among you will stand and fight?"
As usual advice like this is circumstantial and far more nuanced than just tell them the answer
Box-text encounter/location descriptions were one of the worst innovations of module design. They're intended as a crutch for the GM to be able to give a dramatic, interesting description. But when a GM goes into that "narrator voice" I just can't pay attention. Instead... as the GM, you need to know what is going on, what the PCs can see/hear/smell/feel/taste/sense psychically. So, just tell them, like you are talking to your friends. "There's this here and that there, and this is going on. And you notice this odd thingy over there." Bullet points beat boxed text 111% of the time.
And importatn question isn the GM arsenal: "Are you sure?" Followed by a reminder of why their _character_ may not be so sure about doing that, because the player is probably doing something stupid or crazy because the missed some detail.
Assume that anything that should be obvious to the PCs is, well, obvious to the PCs. This means if a player does "something stupid" that their character would obviously know doesn't make sense, instead of making the player roll 10 saves against point for sticking their hand in the box of poisonous vipers to pick up the golden chalice, you say "Are you sure you want to stick your hand in that box of deadly poisonous snakes?" Player: "Snakes? what snakes? I must've missed when you said that bit. No! I don't put my hand in there. LoL!"
Sometime it's also the players fault. When they trigger the first trap and it's harmless, the logic should be that the place is trapped, whether all the trap are deadly or not is irrelevant, as they should try to avoid triggering them. Mine didn't, they simply walked or opened the doors and didn't check for traps. Most of the time they didn't checked and when they did there wasn't any over there. They did find one once and avoided it but later ran back the same way in a hurry, so I made them roll to see if they dodge the trap. 1 did, the other didn't and died. Had they disarmed it, he would have survived.
I dont know if i agree with this, usually if you do a good job of describing what is going on people pick up on it.
Just be careful that you aren't playing the game for them.
Great advice