Tragedy of the Common Discoveries

[wotmaniac]

The Situation:  the party is faced with a given scenario which requires them to go forth and find plot points so that they can determine their particular course of action concerning said scenario.  So, like a bunch of good little busy bees, they go about scouring the countryside for their plot points, splitting up so as to make the most efficient use of their time and resources.  Each character has their own ideas they want to explore and own skill-set with which to explore them.  Each and every player wants their character to be the one to stumble upon the "key" piece of information that will bust this part of the campaign wide open.
And it is up to you, the GM, to disseminate these plot points -- and hopefully it will be done in a way that will be useful and interesting.


When I'm GMing a game and the players all want to have their characters go off on their own individual quests for plot points, I make it a point to make sure that each character gets their own unique piece(s) of information that they can take back to the group.  If I happen to be trying to focus the game in a particular direction, then I'll also make sure to throw down some hints on how these separate pieces of information might fit together in to a common theme.

Okay, fine -- whatever.  However, in the last couple of years I've decided to spend less time GMing and more time as a player.  In my group, we've had 4 other players that have wanted to step-up to the GM screen, and all 4 of them have handled that Situation exactly the same, and it's really bothering me -- they give out all the same information to all of the characters, despite the fact that they are all out on their own separate plot-point quests.  If it to only happened once or twice, I'd get over it in pretty short order; but it happens all the fucking time -- as in literally every single time.  WTF?  Am I the only one who has experienced this?  Or to this volume?  Or am I the exception as a GM?

Here's why the lazy approach bothers me -- in short, it just seems to disincentivize me as a player, which in turn causes me to disengage.

So, here's how my thought process works through this:
Presumably, the party is all working together on a common goal -- sure, they might all have their own little pet projects in the works; however, it is usually the uniting agenda that is the primary driver of the story. 
So, when they want to split up and pursue their own individual delegated tasks, what they are trying to do is cast as wide a net as possible to try to touch as many plot points as they possibly can.
People enjoy feeling special.  Players also like to feel like their characters are useful and important.  And when they go off to do their own thing, they want to have a result and an experience that is unique to them.  And they want to have that result and experience to be not only important and useful, but also in a way that is unique to them.
Whenever the GM just hands out the same list of plot points to all the characters, it really cheapens the player's effort and experience. 

At that point, it becomes easier and easier for a given player to just be like "fuck it, it's all the same info, why do I need to bother -- we're gonna get it all no matter what", or "why am I doing all this work and wasting everybody's time -- there's obviously no point to keeping up the charade".  As I've seen it in practice, what usually ends up happening is that eventually everybody just sits around the table, looks at the GM, and says "okay GM, just give us your plot points so that we can get on with this".  And that level of disengagement causes flat-out boring sessions .... like, to the point where the players start saying to themselves "why am I not doing something else that would actually be fun?".


Anyway .... the mic is now open.  What are your thoughts and experiences on this?

[sirpercival]

I try to split up the information as well.  In terms of amount of work, I usually pay it forward: if I need more information than I have prepped (so that I can split it up roughly equally), I generally ad-lib something and use it to expand on the future plot.

[Unbeliever]

We usually don't do this splitting up thing.  Although the characters do tend to have different skill sets and contacts, etc. to gather information with.  Never once have I seen the same information disseminated like the OP describes.  On occasion I'm sure I'm guilty of not handing out new info when a player tries something different to find some b/c all the info I have disseminated has been exhausted.  In other words, I'll signal essentially "I have no more plot points to give."  Though I can usually give some new info for something really creative.

One thing I wanted to note, though, is that we often have the group working towards one or more PCs' pet agenda.  And, that evolves over the campaign.  For instance, in one game my character's main goal (obsession really) was at the forefront for many adventures.  It was a centerpiece of the plot.  But, now that focus has moved to another player.  As a fellow player, I'm more than happy to cede the spotlight.  As a character, my character is ok with it, too, b/c this other character has helped him out so much with his own endeavors.

I don't know if the above approach would help at all, now that I think about it.

But, yeah, that's truly lazy GMing.  And, you have a right to complain, and suggest they break the info among different pieces (the thieves guild knows X, the Kingsguard know Y). 

[veekie]

Well, it is one type of scenario design, that you have a known information package to give out, and that everything else is just the means of achievement. In this model, it is expected that some of the characters simply fail to get anything, by dint of failing their challenges or having no appropriate means to engage the challenge. It is also expected from players who have especially high capabilities in some areas. High knowledge checks are expected to  reveal all possible information, mental influence denying the subject from holding anything back, and heck, even gather information expected to reveal anything and everything, not to mention things like divination spells.

It does however, save work from the party getting distracted and haring off on a dozen implied objectives. Its also greater on consistency for less work, imagine attempting to account for the possible approaches PCs will take, generating non-redundant rewards for each approach, without having PCs going for 100% completion and pursuing every single hook, odds are the majority of your work is going to waste.

Basically, static scenarios vs dynamic ones. In static scenarios, having a One True Path is the most efficient use of design time per plot unit, while reducing plot holes. In dynamic scenarios you can improvise them towards a designated end goal, but risk creating plot holes and inconsistency in the process.

[wotmaniac]

Let's say that the party comes in to town following whatever plot point they might happen to have at the moment -- let's just say that they're looking for clues on how to infiltrate the BBEG's evil death cult so that they can get to the BBEG and render battle. 
It's late afternoon when they roll in to town, and they want to find someplace to shack-up and relax for the evening.  Once they get settled in, some of them want to relax, and some of them want to get straight to work.  Here's how this might play out:
 -- the orc barbarian decides he just wants to go to the seedy part of town and get a beer and a whore (his skill set might not be up for investigation and/or socializing, so the player is just trying to stay in character while staying out of the way).  While he's off doing that, some street-tough tries to steal his coin pouch -- at which point, the barbarian guts the thief, takes his coin pouch, and throws the body in a storm drain.  Inside the coin pouch, he finds and odd looking token that's tied to a thin leather cord ;
 -- the cleric goes to find a temple so that he can pay proper tribute and to touch bases with the clergy to let them know that he's in town.  While there, one of the clergy pulls him aside and warns him about a cult that has been kidnapping people and possessing their souls ... they're trying to do something about it, but the cult is pretty good at covering their tracks ;
 -- the wizard goes to do some reading and perhaps to find some new spells (buy some scrolls, swap spellbooks, whatever).  He happens to over-hear a conversation where he learns that there has been a run on necromancy spells of late ;
 -- the bard decides that he's going to find an upscale festhouse in which to ply his trade.  He's trying to rub elbows and trade stories with whoever will give him the time of day.  He notices one of the "service ladies" has a blank look on her face, and happens to be wearing a thin leather cord around her neck that has an odd looking token tied to it.  She tries to get the bard to go down to the "secret" private rooms with her, but he gets a funny feeling about it and declines (his Sense Motive checks tells him that she's up to something nefarious) ;

So, we have confirmed that the evil death cult is indeed in town, that they're performing evil magics on innocent civilians, that they're using the festhouse as cover, and that this token has something to do with it.
It's a very simple and straight-forward situation.  Sure, all of that info could have very easily been dumped in a single scene; and if they wanted to stay together and just say "hey, give us the plot points", I could have very simply obliged.  However, as it was, each of them had their own thing going on, and that provided me the opportunity to pepper the info out while allowing each of the players to feel important in the process -- hell, half the players in that situation weren't even trying to do anything.  I find that this helps to keep people engaged, thus increasing the enjoyment had by all.
Now, I'm not saying that I do this all the time -- sometimes I do indeed just do a big info-dump.  I'm just saying that you gotta make the effort once in a while to at least look like you care.

I try to split up the information as well.  In terms of amount of work, I usually pay it forward: if I need more information than I have prepped (so that I can split it up roughly equally), I generally ad-lib something and use it to expand on the future plot.

In dynamic scenarios you can improvise them towards a designated end goal, but risk creating plot holes and inconsistency in the process.

EXACTLY!!!
This opens things up for all kinds of neat stuff.  I generally run things from the hip, and this helps let the players shape both the story and the world.
And if I happen to accidentally open up a huge plot whole in the process, that GREAT -- that gives me the opportunity to fill it with something interesting that adds depth to the story (obviously this can be taken to ridiculous extremes - at which point you might have to retcon some shit - but for the most part it's just an exercise in expanding our creativity).

[veekie]

I lean heavily towards improvisation myself, just that there IS justification for handling things that way. Not all GMs are comfortable with winging it, and there are players who're downright opposed to improvisation(mostly because bad improv can be much worse than bad rails).