Over the years since the publishing of 1st Edition D&D up to present, the way in which adventures are written and play out has changed considerably. There has been a general shift from “on the rails” storytelling, where the players are compelled from one story point to the next, to a “sandbox” style of play, where they are instead led by breadcrumb trail from one story point to the next, sometimes in an order of their own choosing, by doling out tidbits of information. The fashion in which these tidbits are doled out has also changed a little.

I think it’s worthwhile to take a step back and view a campaign arc from the perspective of the dissemination, collection, examination, and dissection of information by the players.

Typically:

The campaign guide/DM’s notes contain information about the story, typically including a background of things prior to the commencement of the current collaborative story-writing and a rough outline of how things are likely to play out. The campaign guide or DM’s notes contain information detailing which bits of information various sources have, and how the PCs might acquire it. In an “on the rails” adventure, it’s usually laid out in a fairly straight forward way where clues are near-impossible to miss, and PCs are directed through the story by some combination of NPCs telling them what to do or where to go and/or finding written information that leads them to the same conclusions. In a “sandbox” adventure, an array of clues, again typically in the form of NPC knowledge and/or written materials found, provides enough information for the PCs to deduce the places they need to be and things they need to do in order to be successful. Through exploration and role-playing, the PCs collect information, examine and dissect it, frequently making deductions that bolster that collected information along with any additional spontaneous tidbits from the DM, and thereby, in collaboration with the DM, construct the story and move it to some sort of conclusion.

Before we go any further, if you’ve not already ready The Three Clue Rule by The Alexandrian, you absolutely must. I cannot agree more. What I have to say is meant to expound on this.

Where Information Originates

Information used by the PCs originates from a number of sources, some obvious, some less so. In the modules of old, most information required by the PCs almost invariably came to them one of two very obvious ways:

An important NPC told them exactly the information they needed; or

They discovered a document (map, letter, journal) that told them exactly the information they needed.

In both cases, the NPC or written information was placed directly in their path so they couldn’t help but trip over it.

These methods, while effective, are both what I would call a “push” system. Information is “pushed” from the DM to the players. It requires little to no work by the PCs.

For a game to be more immersive, especially in more modern adventures that tend to be more “sandbox”, information can and should be more “pull”: determine which NPCs have the required information, and based on their motives, when and why they might part with it, or in the case of written information, where it might be located.

Then, by a sprinkling of clues, the PCs are afforded opportunities to uncover the information: chasing down clues (at least three!) of who might know, finding and questioning them, agreeing to some small task in exchange for the information or otherwise persuading them, and so on. In the case of written information, it could be figuring out whose library or wizard tower might contain the required old maps or documents, and finding a way in, maybe even a burglary side-quest.

When you take a step back, you can see that what you have now is those same two sources of information, but with push or pull options for each:

An NPC has the information and: offers it freely without prompting (push), or is willing to provide it when asked or convinced (pull); or

A document of some sort contains the information and: the PCs stumble across it (push), or learn of its existence and work to find it (pull).



It is important to understand what these options represent:

“Push” means less choice for the players. It creates less sense of agency, and less sense of immersion and investment. They feel like they are being told what to do. This is not necessarily a bad thing; for novice players, without being provided some sense of direction, they often flounder. They sometimes require the obvious being put before them.

“Pull” means more choice for the players, with a greater sense of agency, investment, and immersion, but takes some of the story-telling power out of the hands of the DM and places it with the PCs. This means the DM has to be more flexible in adapting to PC decision – right, wrong, or completely unpredictable. This tends to work better with experienced players, who may tend to resent the “on the rails” approach, who embrace the idea that their choices have consequence and want those choices to have meaning.

Most groups are probably some combination of player types and preferences, and so too will most adventures be some combination of pushes and pulls.

Beyond pushing and pulling, there is also a third source of information: the PCs themselves deduce it. The PCs extrapolate some larger piece of important information based on inferences and other pieces of information they already have. Effectively, it’s assembled from other, smaller bits. This can lead to further immersion and adventuring, and can be used to promote collaboration within the group, particularly if different players are privy to different pieces of the puzzle, empowering (or forcing) them to work together to assemble the bits.

Perhaps that map they acquired is incomplete, or doesn’t fit with some other piece of information they were told. Maybe it indicates a void space, but doesn’t indicate a secret door anywhere.

Depending on how easy or difficult this information should be to deduce, some combination of push or pull clues can leads the PCs to that assembly: Did an NPC tell them “yeah, I heard they have a map of the old tower ruins at the library, but Mongo the Marvellous always said there was something wrong with it”? Or perhaps you simply offer a player an Intelligence check to “notice” (have you point out) the void space?

Maybe the rogue acquired the map, but it was the bard who overheard someone describe it as “incomplete”. Now the two pore over it together to see what they can find.

Through a combination of pushing, pulling, and assembling clues, you can determine just how lengthy (time-consuming), immersive, and easy or difficult it is for the PCs to move forward.

Is yours an adventure that requires much exploration, role-playing conversations with NPCs, and side-questing in order to find ways to the next goal, or do the PCs tend to quickly and easily find the information they require with little to no effort, focusing more game time instead on the more combative elements?

Credibility

Sometimes NPCs lie. Sometimes, they tell the truth but are simply mistaken. Insight checks might help determine if someone is willfully lying or being deceptive, but they won’t help with NPCs who are trying to help but just don’t know the precise truth themselves.

Be very cautious with giving the PCs misinformation: a single piece of misinformation can easily be latched onto in a way that will require multiple pieces of good information to the contrary to make the PCs realize its inaccuracy. It is hard to get the PCs to drop a “pull” gone wrong, harder to convince them to drop a “push” gone wrong, and damn near impossible to have them drop a deduction they made after they’ve patted themselves on the backs for being so clever.

How Information Flows

Another idea worth exploring is that regardless of where information theoretically originates, how it flows into the group can also be an opportunity for immersion and collaboration. Taking a few examples:

All PCs are present when one questions an NPC about something. The NPC response is spoken aloud by the DM in front of all the players. This makes sense: the DM is roleplaying the NPC, who is speaking that information aloud in front of all the PCs.

One or more (but not all) the PCs are present when one questions an NPC about something. The NPC response is spoken aloud by the DM in front of all the players (often on the basis that they’re going to simply repeat it to their companions later). However, this means the PCs not present get an unfiltered version (rather than through the explanation of their companions) and get an opportunity to decide for themselves if they find the information credible. Consider: Would it be better (though trickier and more time-consuming) to separate the players and allow the information to be retold?

Would it be better (though trickier and more time-consuming) to separate the players and allow the information to be retold? A single PC makes a check to determine if their character might know something. Often, the DM asks the PC to make a skill check on the spot, and on the success (or based on the measure of success), speaks an answer aloud in front of all the players. Again, this means the entire group is getting the same “perfect” version of the answer. While it’s the most time-efficient way for the players to get the information, it also a great opportunity for more immersive, collaborative play wasted. Consider: Would it be better to provide that information to that one player separately and allow them to tell it to the group?

While splitting the group (or especially a lone individual) for the passage of information may seem more tedious and time-consuming, there are simple measures to be taken that can enable it with a minimum of effort. For instance, a very common knowledge check at the game table is usually for the purpose of “monster knowledge”: on hearing of werewolves bothering the village, invariably a PC will ask to make a Nature, History, or Arcana check to see “what do I know about werewolves?” As a DM knowing in advance that this is likely to occur, have printed cards (multiple types for different DCs or different types of checks, perhaps) on hand to give a player succeeding on a check. Have them read the card and hand it back without reading it aloud, forcing them to paraphrase what they’ve read to the others in their own words (if they wish). This allows for the same information to come to the group in the form of a conversation within the group. I create cards by single-side printing things made with this RPG Card Generator.

This can also be done for other, larger and pertinent pieces of information for items not requiring checks. For example, one of my PCs is an ardent worshiper of a certain god, and I know that in the following session the PCs are expect to reach a town containing a church of said god, dedicated to a particular saint of that faith. Before that session arrived, I wrote an Email to that player detailing a little information about that saint within her faith, and encouraging her to embellish the saint’s story a little. When the session arrived a few days later and the PCs reached the church, that player was then able to interject with the relevant piece of history. In this way, the PCs still received the same information they would have from me, but it was now a role-playing opportunity for this player to proudly espouse their character’s religious faith, rather than the group simply hearing the information from the DM.

Exploring a city? Cards detailing guilds, shops, or factions. The possibilities are endless. If the cards are collectible – i.e. retained by the players – they won’t be as easily forgotten. “Wait! The Cult of Shesh-Bazo?! Aren’t they the ones who… hang on, we have a card around here somewhere about them…”

Putting it all Together

In putting together a campaign, it’s worth taking a step back to examine the information that will lead the PCs to construct the story moving through each required element, be it “on the rails” in a particular order, or in one of their own choosing in a “sandbox”. Either way, take a step back and ask: