In one of the campaigns I play in, tempers are fraying and snapping over how much information is being withheld from the party. We're constantly meeting powerful, knowledgeable NPCs and asking them questions about our situation. And every time we get utterly shut down by excuses. Tempers blew up when the recent ancient mysterious NPC refused to tell us anything about a vital NPC she knew, citing "Privacy." I angrily accused the GM of trying to stonewall us into doing something stupid by withholding any information we could use to make a decision. Another player has thrown up his hands in frustration and is threatening to "quit caring and just go along for the ride". Both of us have debated quitting the campaign outright after this.
The GM, meanwhile, is mad at me for getting so pissed at not knowing anything, saying that if he revealed everything now, we wouldn't have anything to discover later. How do I convince him that revealing something, anything, about our situation won't ruin the whole plot? Or, at least, to quit having us meet NPCs that could spoil huge swaths of the plot just by asking them the right questions? Or that spoiling most of the plot is preferable to two players leaving in frustration?
I usually take the existence of powerful, knowledgeable NPCs as a sure sign of a bad or inexperienced DM. It's not a truism, but that's been my experience. These are the "you can't screw with these guys" quest-givers that the DM uses to push the players toward courses of action (or dissuading them from things that the DM thinks is a "bad idea"). Or they're the know-it-all NPCs that have access to all of the DM's plots and plans. They're so ubiquitous in D&D games that I think even Chris Perkins advocated the use of these latter types of NPCs. In my view, they are essentially in-game proxies for the DM's out-of-game desire for control. I'm not okay with that, but many groups are.
What you're witnessing in play is blocking, straight up. Blocking is about controlling the creation of new information or avoiding vulnerability. The DM (or a player) has something to protect and a lack of trust (possibly warranted but often not) so they block anything that may or may not be a threat to their plot, plans, view of "their" world, vision of "the story," prep, or anything really. Blocks can also happen as a way for the DM to buy time. Say you wanted information on that vital NPC, the DM might have simply had nothing prepared, isn't good at improv, and doesn't know how to collaborate with the players when he's stuck (or that he even can do this). So he blocks you to get you to go away and give him time to come up with something.
There's also one other issue that I see a lot: DMs using blocking as a form of in-game challenge. Surly or cagey NPCs are almost a certain sign of this tact as is the DM not asking for skill checks or asking for meaningless skill checks ("Give me aaaaaan Insight check...3? Okay good enough."). You generally have to jump through the NPC's hoops to get what you want which, as above, is just a proxy for the DM's biases. Here, the DM is making himself the challenge rather than the game, forcing you to figure out a way to game the DM to achieve your goals. The way to do that is to read the DM and figure out what his kinks are. Perhaps it's a certain level of acting ability or plot adherence or remembering a clue from three weeks ago or appealing to his sense of realism or logic. Once you can figure that out, you can game the DM and make things happen. This is poor DMing, plain and simple. There is a difference between presenting a legitimate in-game challenge that uses the actual mechanics and making the DM's blocks the challenge.
Unfortunately, there's not much you can do here. I've talked to a lot of DMs who do this (and I mean a lot) and they often believe it is a perfectly legitimate way to challenge the players. It is legitimate if everyone buys into it, of course, but I've yet to see a table fully do that and your blow-up is not uncommon in these situations. I've seen it time and again. I've even done exactly what you did before and have left games over it. The game's pace is generally plodding, the players frustrated (and frequently absent). I'll give you some advice to share with the DM, but be prepared for it to fall on deaf ears and for you to need to find another game:
- Give information freely, generously even. If the legitimate in-game challenge is the acquisition of specific information, then frame it that way and do a skill challenge with level-appropriate complications and DCs. Be okay with the outcome, even if it means "spoiling" your plot. Revealing a plot just means the players will act. It doesn't mean they automatically win.
- Players need information to act and move the game forward. You need to make sure they get that information. It cannot be obscured by your blocks or hidden behind a skill check that may not ever be actually made or may never be achieved. If they fail a check or skill challenge to get information, give them the information at a cost rather than give them nothing. The game moving forward is more important than anything else.
- If you're running an adventure with a plot, tell the players this. Let them know that the adventure is on that plot and nowhere else. Don't play the game of "I have a plot, but you can go off it if you want" either. That's often total bullstuff - you're just going to throw up blocks and make the game boring when they go off it. So let the players know what to expect and they won't do that.
- You are not the challenge of D&D. The game is the challenge as is the creative improvisation. When you make yourself the game, you are not playing D&D anymore and that's probably not what your players signed up for. You are instead playing a weird version of poker where the players have to read your tells and call your bluff to move forward and the game mechanics may as well not apply. And unlike an engaging game of poker, in your game there are no cards and no real stakes involved which makes these interactions boring and frustrating as hell.
- You probably want "roleplaying" in your game or "creative solutions" or for players to solve problems by means other than combat. You probably also crave character development and deep character interaction. Guess what, pal? What you're doing will achieve those things inconsistently at best and I bet you blame the players for that when it's really your fault. Your players cling to combat because it easier to for them to justify their action by way of the rules. Outside of combat, you're blocking the hell out of them, so what possible incentive do they have to do the things you prefer?
Good luck, Jeff.
Talk to the DM about these concerns you have. If you can't reach a compromise you and the other player should quit. Form a new group with one of you as the DM, and invite other people you know. See if any of the other players are interested in your game.
If you really value the guys friendship, and just stole all his players, consider inviting him to be a player in your game to and try to show him a better way.
+1 to this. 
(Iserith's advice above)
I personally think this response by Iserith here needs to be in the D&D Next DMG (or something like it).
I have played under DMs like the one the OP describes and it sucks. In short he is making the characters deaf, dumb and blind. Like Iserith, I have found talking to DMs about this out of game to be mostly fruitless.
However, I have solved this problem ingame, oddly enough, twice. How? I simply played my character as being totally dumb and stupid about the world. The DM would get frustrated and say, "I gave you all you need to know." I would say back, "Sorry, missed it. Describe to me again that cute person over there.." The DM, realizing that it was either give me more information or have to deal with a character so disconected from his plots that they go on tangents (thus seeking pointless romance) ad nausiem. Given that choice some DMs may be pursuaded to give real, concrete and pertnent info so that his precious plots and world can move forward. If you can get other players into the act, even better. For stubborn DMs; when he complains about your characters acting dumb and oblivious, simply tell that him that you are role playing your character(s) correctly because they really are oblivious due to the fact he hasn't told you anything worthwile. This has worked in two campaings. Disclaimer: Your mileage will vary and it is only for those with extreme patience and the ability to endure some miserable games.
Failing that, find a better DM. The DM is the PC's eyes, ears and senses. He controls what you can "see." You play to "see" the world in your mind's eye. You can't do that if you can't "see" what's going on. Therefore, why play in this case?
Thanks for the kind words. I've seen enough of this sort of thing lately to have a few thoughts on the matter.
I finally talked with him about it. It didn't end well. Apparently one of the NPCs was "meant to be eccentricly anti-social", while the other two were just meant to be enigmatic past associates of an amnesiac PC who didn't have any interest in the rest of us. We were just invited along so we would have something to do besides twiddle our thumbs while they took care of it privately. The problem is that I feel it wouldn't have been as frustrating if we were just twiddling our thumbs, because then we could have RPed small talk amongst ourselves rather than be belittled by an NPC. I also wish that if he was bringing in NPCs tied to a PC's background, they'd make some effort to recruit us as well instead of mostly ignore us & be suspicious of us.
He also acted like the alternative to being enigmatic about everything was to reveal everything, and accused me of demanding too much info and being mad when the NPCs weren't completely open with us.
He also sounded mad that I completely disregarded a plot hook concerning a magical staff, when I told him I still didn't understand why that magical staff was so important. (As far as I can tell, it's only really important to one PC; the rest of us are a tad confused why we should pursue it in particular.)
There's an additional wrinkle in this: some of the information my PC was seeking, I already know OOCly from a previous campaign of his. I was hoping to begin finding it out (all over again) so I wouldn't have to worry about keeping my metagame knowledge separate from my IC knowledge. (Or worse, role-play a character tricked into doing something catastrophically stupid because she doesn't have the IC info I have OOCly; the role-playing equivalent of screaming at your PC not to open that door.)
Any follow-up suggestions? I managed to get more info about the GM's motives and what exactly's going on OOCly, but in terms of doing something about it I feel like I'm right back at Square One & I ended up frustrating the GM in the process. The best idea I can come up with is discuss it with another player who's better at negotiation IRL than I am.
Sorry to hear that Jeff.
If the DM won't work with you, or is blaiming you for "missing the important stuff" there isn't much you can do. You are going to have to decide if hanging with him and your friends is worth putting up with a game that is unsatisfactory for you. Having other players speak up on the issue could help, but it may end up with him thinking he has a "bunch of dud players" instead of facing the truth that it is mostly a result of his style.
The other Idea I have is for you to take up the reigns as DM on off weeks and show him what you like in a game. Still, if a person refuses to see that there is an issue, there isn't much you can do. If you like hanging with him and the party, try to see it as a social gathering and see game as an excuse to be there. That will ease the pain somewhat.
JeffGroves wrote:
Chainsawhand wrote:
You know, there could be another issue at work. It is very possible his descriptive skills are lacking. He may be thinking his message is getting out loud and clear when it, in fact, isn't. If he thinks he has given the information in a clear and easy to understand way, but actually hasn't, he may be convinced his players aren't listening. Still, this doesn't excuse a dismissive attitude on his part, but this can be an issue, for I have seen it many times. DMs who are lacking in this department often get frustrated and sometimes take it out on their players.
Giving, concise, meaningful descriptions that accurately convey the scene at hand is a learned skill. Some folks are better at it than others. I would say it is one of the defining skills of a good DM. If this is indeed the case, you might be able to help him. In short your DM might not know how to describe things well. The rub is, most folks don't know they are lacking in this regard.
First, take copius and acurate notes. Get as many of the players in on this as possible. This will help to see if the information is indeed getting out there.
Second, he may not know how to emphasize the important stuff and is diluting the info in a barrage of minutia. The best way to combat this is to ask questions. The tone you ask them is very important. Try not to sound confused or mad, instead ask them as if very interested. I am sure he will tell you more. For instance, he speaks of a magical staff. Ask him straight out, "Cool, is there something my character would know of this." Ask who made it, where it came from and so on. Ask for skill and knowledge checks. Try to word your in game queries in a way that begs for more information and gets him to divulge what is truly important in the game.
Sometimes, a person swears he said something but actually didn't. Some folks do this habitually. Taking notes is a good fix as is recording the session. If he is forgetting to mention stuff you can prove it this way.
Likewise, some DMs can't keep their facts straight, as in the info changes from game to game. Most DMs don't mean to do this, but if they aren't aware they are doing this, they can get frustrated with the players as well as the players getting confused and frustrated as well. To them, it appears as if the players aren't listening. To fix this, player notes help, but it is imperative the DM takes good notes for each session.
It is possible his discriptions are boring or needlessly complex. Likewise his plots and stories. If both are convoluted, youch! Does he make the players' eyes glaze over with his descriptions? If so, getting him to mention things in smaller chunks might help alot.
He probably thinks certain things should be obvious. After all, it is obvious to him. He is forgetting that it should be obvious to him since he made it up, but it won't be obvious for anyone else. The only way to fix this is make a point of this any time he says, "This should be a no brainer guys!"
I write this in the hopes you can salvage your game by giving the DM the benefit of doubt. I have seen the lack of the ability to drescribe destroy games. Now, should he be truly withholding info on purpose to the point of pure frustration for you, then my previous post's advice holds. However should it come to light that his "withholding of info" isn't entirely on purpose then there is hope. The trick will then be to get him to admit he is lacking. The best way to get him to face forward is to actually play recordings of game sessions back to him.
That's a good point, Kishri. DMs, especially DMs with plots, are often trying to play it coy and be all subtle. Then when it's time for the players to choose courses of action, they're completely unsure of what to do because they lack context (or don't know what details are important and which are not).
I figure that if the DM is giving out a generous amount of information, about half of it actually sinks in, therefore it's hit or miss. You can be sure if you said the killer was that guy right there, the players are going to miss it or think it's a ruse. So I strive to be over-generous - not in terms of length, but rather import and clarity. This seems to hit the mark. To be clear, by "generous," I do not mean the DM should be dumping volumes of info on the players. It just has to be focused, relevant, and easy to understand in context.
In any case, I find that if the players say, "We want to go talk to So-and-So to find out more about Yadda Yadda..." then something has gone awry, presuming finding out more from So-and-So is something other than an in-game challenge. It means I was too subtle and the players are indirectly asking me for information so they can make decisions that do lead to in-game challenges. Oftentimes I'll stop, ask if there's something that they want to ask me directly, and take it from there. If they do want to play out the scene with an informative NPC, that's fine. But I check first and I make sure to ask the conditions for when such a scene is done.
Well, we finally resolved it decently. A more diplomatic player talked to our GM after I did; it sounds like whatever he said sank in. The GM & I apologized for snapping at each other the next day and he listened to my concerns, said he didn't plan on going down that route, and discussed a few ideas on how to do that. I suspect my previous nitpicking made him less tolerable of my complaints, so I needed another player to voice my concerns for me.
I'm not sure if we're out of the woods yet, but at least there's hope things will change for the better now. I'll see what happens in the next few sessions.
I have seen this, where the DM apparently feels that enigmatic NPCs are an essential part of the challenge, and also overestimates his players' ability to figure out mutiple vague threads. It can be very frustrating, but it sounds like you are on your way to working things out. Try to keep your DM mindful of the fact that, from behind the screen, a clue can be strikingly obvious, though on the table it can be meaningless.