When players Discern Realities, I have a tendency to think that their questions will imply relevance. For example, if a players asks “what here is not what it appears to be?”, then I take it that there must be something that isn’t what it appears to be.
The reason is that I feel that I cheat the players by answering in the negative. “Nothing” is a boring and dissatisfying answer. Giving answers they already know is also pretty dull, and it doesn’t add to the story.
The hardest question to answer, I think, is often “What should I be on the lookout for?”, at least without telling them something obvious they knew beforehand.
Have other people had problems improvising when a player Discerns Realities?
Turn it back on another player with a secret, or “ask and build on the answers”. When the Paladin asks what is not what it appears, ask the Thief, “I don’t know, Shank, what IS?” and see what they say. Or else, ask “what seems off, to you?”
Don’t feel pressured, though, to make something where there is nothing. Say “lucky you, all is as it appears” and leave it at that.
Also, it’s worth considering the trigger for the move, too – listen for how they are discerning and for what – you’ll hear the topic of discussion in the way the move arises from the narrative.
Yeah, turning it back on the players is something I’ve done a few times. It is fun to hear what the players actually expect.
Negative answers, like you propose, might also be a good way to lower the pressure a little. Some times that suits a story well too.
Thanks for the great answer 🙂
If nothing is unusual I avoid nothing as a reply, I tell him how he actually noticed everything there is to it the first time, and how they are certain there is nothing else to it.
I also like to avoid “nothing” as an answer if I can, but it hasn’t given me much problem so far. I think sometimes even if my answer to “what should I be on the lookout for?” isn’t shocking, it probably reassures the player that they have their priorities right and nothing’s going to sneak up on them.
I’m right there with you. I hate saying “nothing”, but sometimes that’s the truth. I try to look at it as now the play knows that there’s nothing hidden or misleading (since I, as the GM, must be truthful), so it’s not a “wasted” move.
That is what I have been doing, they love to know they haven’t missed anything, so it is never a waste.
I find discern realities a much more useful tool than spout lore as a GM because of the structured nature of the questions the players get to ask, especially on a 7-9 result. Often players were using spout lore as a “what is it?” Roll. I was able to go with vague answers of possibilities on the misses, but some advice on effective leverage on a spout lore roll would be rally useful.
Spout Lore is about what you already know – its just the characters recollecting and moving in-character knowledge to out of character knowledge. It’s not about “what is going on” and very much about “what else?”
Turning it back on the players is one of the opportunities you have to let the game go a little farther than you expected.
Some call it “cooperative narration” or “delegated narration”.
Player’s ideas are always fun and inspiring.
When you lack ideas players don’t 😉
Mad Adric -> Actually, I treat 10+ results the same way as 7-9 results on Spout Lore, with the addition that I ask the player “How is that useful?”.
As Magi Max said; when you lack ideas, players don’t 🙂