Post scenario "debrief" - how much do you do?

[uglifruit]

After running a scenario to completion, how much do you let your players see "behind the curtain".

Do you let them know, if they didn't already realise, which lesser god was pulling the strings?

Do you let them know about plot threads they missed?

Do you let them know which of the n.p.c.s were made up on the spot, because they'd done something unexpected?

Or do you just nod and smile knowingly, and let them assume everything was Just As You Planned?

[Atgxtg]

It depends. If it is something that won't affect future events, and can help them to figure where the overlooked or went wrong on something, then sure, I'll tell them some stuff. If it is something that will have future repercussions, like they never went down into the cellar and found the Shoggoth, then probably not. Better it comes back to bite them later.

 

[klecser]

The answer to most of those questions is "sometimes." But I will tell you that I always tell them how much they do that I didn't expect and how awesome that was. People like to hear when they violate other people's expectations. It's like a badge of honor. I also like to celebrate players who really shined.

[ragr]

It depends a lot on whether or not we intend to continue with the same characters or not. If it's a one-shot I'm happy to reveal a little more about what was going on although, as klecser stated so well, the game was more about what the players did in it than what was going on. As an aside, I remember running a convention game with a player who I knew from previous experience was a well known "picker of faults". This guy approached me after the game and asked loads of questions along the lines of "what was going on with x, y and z?" I donned my cape of maximum stoicism and answered each question with "what did you think was happening there?" Wasn't asked about things again, strangely; although that's 20 minutes of my life I'll not get back. Spend to gain.

If it's a campaign game with ongoing characters then the answer is usually no because knowing what was going on will have an impact upon what goes on next, even in a different scenario. What I might do is encourage a player with such concerns to investigate those questions and loose ends in character - I can then turn that into a future scenario and one that is very personal to that investigator, a real opportunity.  Missed plot threads aren't biodegradable so they always return in a different guise at some point, so they never get given away; they're a precious resource.

There is no difference between a planned npc and one made up on the spot. If someone was important enough to the players that they had to be instantly created then they were important enough to have been planned.

The only absolute truth I've found is not to have a group debrief where you'll reveal something because not everyone in the group wants the same things and some players want to know what was happening and others are happier walking away with mysteries. A private chat or an email/PM serves better for this. I am happy for players to shoot the breeze as a group but I can neither confirm nor deny their speculations.  

Edited July 16, 2020 by ragr

[uglifruit]

Thanks everyone - these are all great points to consider.

[klecser]

I'll give you an example from our most recent session from this past Saturday. We are mid way through Timeless Sands of India. Trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the middle of the scenario where the timing of what the Investigators are doing and what the threats are doing really matters quite a bit. And my players made a series of choices that essentially resulted in them saving the lives of dozens of civilians. I went in fully expecting a ton of civilians to die, and player actions lead to forcing a confrontation in a place I didn't expect. And it happened to be an ideal place for protecting those civilians. And it isn't like it was "you randomly succeeded." The actions they took made complete sense and were proactive. So, I emphasized with them that I had not expected that and they had saved a ton of civilians.

But here is the icing on the cake. I looked at the back of the module to see what rewards, if any, there were for saving civilians. And there are none. So, this was an opportunity to emphasize how much they influence my Keeping. I said: "Let's see what rewards there are for saving civilians. Drat. There are none. Well, I think that is bullspit. Ya'll are going to be getting a Sanity reward for saving civilians!"

And the enjoyment was palpable.

Edited July 16, 2020 by klecser

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, uglifruit said:

Thanks everyone - these are all great points to consider.

One point to consider is why do you debrief them. If is just to point out how bad they are, then it's not a great idea, and will just annoy them. If it is to show why things went a certain way, and point out something specific, to help them improve in the future, then it is a good idea.

We've recently taken a break from Pendragon (a BRP game) to play James Bond (a non-BRP game but still a distant cousin), which itself is only a Deep One away from CoC Investigators, ala Delta Green. Last session the group were given a training exercise where they were to infiltrate a small island base on Atoll in the Pacfic and photograph the "enemy's" new Surface-to-Air Missile Launcher. The agents got to the island by inflatable raft, and were dealing with the chain link fence when the enemy was altered by something. Then some men came out of the camp and one spotted a PC, which lead to the PCs shooting a band of guards with their silenced pistols before said guard could open up with their AKs (all paint rounds for the exercise). The PCs eventually managed to succeed but ran into more guards when they returned to their formerly inflatable raft, necessitating their stealing a nearby helicopter to escape, pausing only to disable the SAM launcher first.

After the mission  the characters went through a debriefing, where thier superior pointed out to them that they failed to hide their boat, and it was discovered by an enemy patrol, and that was what alerted the enemy to their presence, and were planning to trap them in crossfire up against the "deadly" (i.e. slightly) electric fence. Fortunately for the players,  the guard they shot earlier were the ones who were supposed to spring the trap, and the players got the enemy CO when he went back to check up on the missing men. 

The debriefing proved useful as the players all realized that they had forgotten all about the raft, and that they should have tried to hide it before moving on, instead of just leaving it out on the open beach. They also found out how one guard spotting them and reacting to them probably helped to save the mission, as when the players took out those guard they disrupted the enemy's plans and leadership, turning it into a free for all, which the players won. Next time, however, they won't forget the boat. So the debriefing served a purpose, as next time the bad guys won't be using paint guns. 

 

[Lordabdul]

17 hours ago, klecser said:

The answer to most of those questions is "sometimes." But I will tell you that I always tell them how much they do that I didn't expect and how awesome that was. People like to hear when they violate other people's expectations. It's like a badge of honor. I also like to celebrate players who really shined.

Yes, this.

How much I reveal also very much depends on whether it's an ongoing campaign or not. Generally, I reveal as much as possible (avoiding spoilers for following scenarios of course), as long as the players ask questions. If they don't ask, I don't reveal much. If they ask and it's a one-shot scenario, I tell them everything.

[Ian Absentia]

18 hours ago, klecser said:

The answer to most of those questions is "sometimes."

Ditto here, though I'll add that I almost always regret it when I discuss what players missed.  Almost always there's a sense of deflation when you tell them that they did something wrong.  It's a little more positive when they're clearly discouraged from a frustrating session, and you're trying to work through what did and didn't work mechanically, as opposed to according to desires and expectations.

It's also worth noting that often as not, when a session doesn't work out it's because the players weren't acting according to my expectations as a GM, not that they were doing anything wrong.

So there's talking about unresolved plot threads, which I think is kind of a no-no, then there's work-shopping a better game among a play group.

18 hours ago, klecser said:

But I will tell you that I always tell them how much they do that I didn't expect and how awesome that was.

Double-plus good.  There are many ways of rewarding entertaining play, but simply hooting appreciation may be the most effective.  Situations like that sometimes deserve a peek behind the curtain after the session is over.

!i!

[klecser]

20 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Ditto here, though I'll add that I almost always regret it when I discuss what players missed.  Almost always there's a sense of deflation when you tell them that they did something wrong.  It's a little more positive when they're clearly discouraged from a frustrating session, and you're trying to work through what did and didn't work mechanically, as opposed to according to desires and expectations.

It's also worth noting that often as not, when a session doesn't work out it's because the players weren't acting according to my expectations as a GM, not that they were doing anything wrong.

Ian is making two critical points here.

I very rarely describe the clues they miss. I agree with him that there are risks to pulling back the curtain too much. Attenuation to the mystery is an important Keeper skill and we shouldn't be putting on a magic show that is immediately followed by describing how every trick worked. There is also tremendous fun in not knowing things.

The tone in which you engage matters. I think it critical that a Keeper has the skills to to be empathetic and not be emphasizing "well, you all really screwed that up!" That is not helpful or productive. In my experience, it is more along the lines of "You made a really interesting decision here and I had to work really hard to figure out how to respond to that effectively!" In other words, showing them how they are encouraging me to grow as a Keeper. And that I take their decisions as opportunities, rather than nuisance. You can spot a Keeper that treats their players as if they are a nuisance from a mile away. And I'd venture that they likely aren't as productive of a Keeper as they think they are. Don't be Gygax, unless your players explicitly tell you that is what they want.

Edited July 16, 2020 by klecser

[Ian Absentia]

3 minutes ago, klecser said:

Don't be Gygax, unless your players explicitly tell you that is what they want.

Ouch!  But, yeah, adversarial games of GM vs The Players need to be agreed upon in advance.

I think the OP is sort of getting at the conundrum of Apocalypse Now vs Hearts of Darkness., the former being the theatrical film, the latter the documentary about the cluster-cuss of making that movie (not the Joseph Conrad novel).  Do you enjoy remaining immersed in the story, or do you also enjoy watching how the sausage is made?  For many, witnessing the process dispels the illusion of story.

My general advice: Encourage the players to believe that they are the masters of the emerging story.  Often as not, they are.

!i!

[klecser]

43 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Ouch!  But, yeah, adversarial games of GM vs The Players need to be agreed upon in advance.

I am fully prepared to contend that Gary Gygax was a human being, and not a god. And that there are aspects of his GMing that are not models for what we have learned over the last 40 years. And I recognize that is not a popular opinion in the hobby. 

Edited July 16, 2020 by klecser

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, klecser said:

I am fully prepared to contend that Gary Gygax was a human being, and not a god. And that there are aspects of his GMing that are not models for what we have learned over the last 40 years. And I recognize that is not a popular opinion in the hobby. 

But probably not an inaccurate one.

To be fair to the "Gygax school" of DMing, D&D did evolve out of wargaming rules, which were adversarial by nature. One of the drawback to blazing a new trail is that you don't have the luxury of knowing the best approach to something, only one approach. Had Gygax, and Areneson been blessed with a vision of things to come D&D would have came out very differently.  One of the reasons why D&D and AD&D were such a mess of rules was that virtually every time someone wanted to handle something new, they ended up making a new game mechanic to  cover it, instead of having a universal game mechaic that could cover most things. 

DMing was similar. It started as somewhat adversarial due to wargaming, and morphed into a referee/scenario designer who created the challenges for the other players and was expected to judge their actions impartially. That was back in the 70s. In the 80s that started to change, but CoC is old enough have been influenced by the old way of doing things. 

 

[uglifruit]

2 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Do you enjoy remaining immersed in the story, or do you also enjoy watching how the sausage is made?  For many, witnessing the process dispels the illusion of story.

 I think this is exactly where I am trying to be careful.  I know my players (socially) very well, and can probably predict which of them (there's one in particular) who would probably not enjoy a 'peep behind the curtain'.

Weirdly this makes me think of Stage Magic, of which I am a fan.  Regardless of knowing how a lot of tricks are 'done' - I can still enjoy (or criticise) the execution, whereas I think some people have stage magic completely ruined by knowing the mechanics of a trick, even if they think that they want to know.

[Ian Absentia]

Just now, uglifruit said:

Weirdly this makes me think of Stage Magic, of which I am a fan.  Regardless of knowing how a lot of tricks are 'done' - I can still enjoy (or criticise) the execution, whereas I think some people have stage magic completely ruined by knowing the mechanics of a trick, even if they think that they want to know.

Or professional wrestling!  Or film theory, or lit-crit.  Or even cooking.  My son and I will dive deep into the critique of how a new recipe turned out, while my daughter will chafe at the fact that we're not just enjoying the meal.  Separating critique from play is a very real concern for many.

!i!

[EricW]

Full debrief if the players are interested, especially if the scenario ended badly, unless that debrief would affect future events.

Not just for the players - if the players missed a clue or plot line, its important for the players to provide feedback, so everyone can see things from each other's perspective, to help improve future games.

[soltakss]

On 7/15/2020 at 10:39 PM, uglifruit said:

After running a scenario to completion, how much do you let your players see "behind the curtain".

Nothing.

On 7/15/2020 at 10:39 PM, uglifruit said:

Do you let them know, if they didn't already realise, which lesser god was pulling the strings?

No.

On 7/15/2020 at 10:39 PM, uglifruit said:

Do you let them know about plot threads they missed?

No.

On 7/15/2020 at 10:39 PM, uglifruit said:

Do you let them know which of the n.p.c.s were made up on the spot, because they'd done something unexpected?

No. never, not ever. If they want to guess then they can try.

On 7/15/2020 at 10:39 PM, uglifruit said:

Or do you just nod and smile knowingly, and let them assume everything was Just As You Planned?

Yes.

Hah! I got one right!

If the Players really want to know and it was a one-off then i'll tell them. But, if it is part of a campaign then I'm not going to tell them anything. Let them find out next time.

[Umpherous Vermillion]

The debrief is one of my favorite parts of the game. It is a chance for the players to ask 'what if?'  Sometimes, they realize they made the best possible choice; other times, they realize they made a serious miscalculations. And it affords me the opportunity to realize I made an error or failed to explain some aspect of the game in enough detail for them to understand what had happened. In short, I get much benefit as the players.  Often players will ask about NPC's motivations that were hard to discern during the game.

[Closterphobia]

Like many others, I’ll do a debrief for a one-shot, but never for an ongoing campaign. I find for a one-shot players may want to know simple things like “did we miss any clues?,” that type of thing.