I would love some advice, ladies and gents. How do you allow the players to learn about your awesome plots and plans without it being unrealistic? Here's the deal: if you are a good GM, I'm sure you write some pretty cool cults, and NPCs who lead them. You write scenerios in which the cult has built up a following, staying ever under the radar and peddling influence/drugs/weapons. Now, the acolytes have been dispatched to uncover them. You know all sorts of information about your clever NPC tricks and you know that they will do anything in their power to not get caught. I mean, if you're dealing with a lame cult or NPC who isn't careful, surely the Inquisition wouldn't be needed to get to them. So, when the PCs come in and start asking questions, of course everyone is going to lie, feign helpfulness but steer them towards red herrings, alert their contacts to cool it, etc. In addition, all the regular old people that the cell talks to are either unaware of the cult (typical) or are in on it (complicit) and again, leads will be very hard to come by. I've been told that I play my cards too close to my chest, but seriously who wouldn't? So, how do you guys balance the idea that you want to encourage your PCs to do things and keep pushing in their investigation instead of deciding that everyone who doesn't immediately help them is probably in on it, and summarily executing them? Not that it's come to that, but it seems like it will… How do you reward their investigation realistically? One of my players is an experienced GM and he described the process like reeling in a fish. You have to give them a little line so they feel like the fight is worth it. Looking for some input because I'm feeling very discouraged.

Your GM friend is correct, you need to give them little clues to keep them moving. One of the hard truths of Gamemastering is that your players are never as interested in the setting as you are. It's hard for players to keep focused on the story when they can't see the shape of things.

Also, keep in mind that your players aren't as smart, savvy or experienced as their characters. Sometimes you might have to give them a little nudge, give them perspective on the situation through narration or even a bit of interjected monologue. One thing I tend to do as a GM is describe things that a given character knows or little bits of intuition or common sense that a PC would have but the player may lack. I feed them little bits of narrative that don't necessarily require a roll to keep things going.

Most players understand that if a GM mentions or takes the time to describe something, it's probably important. I mean, you've only got so much time. You can't describe the face of every hive dreg, every food stall or every poxy joygirl that stumbles in their path. Make sure that there is a subtle but appreciable difference between your description of the environment and texture of the setting as opposed to the engaging important bits. Almost like, and I'm over-simplifying here, in video games when a particular item of interest glows in such a way that you understand its importance. You need to do that sometimes, just with words.

I hope I make sense.

Hiya,

I sometimes wonder how good at this I am myself. I tend to present the players with a situation and ask them "what do you do?" Let them come up with ideas and essentially unless they are ridiculous/just plain shouldn't I allow it to give them something. They get all CSI on a scene? Let them discover a little clue. They grab a witness and interrogate? He'll give them something worthwhile. The key is to ensure that not every single thing they do gives them a clue but most of the time I think it should. If you limit it so they only get a clue when they do what you planned for them to do I think you have got it wrong (not saying that is what is happening btw just an example). The important thing I tend to focus on when putting together a situation is to plan the overall thoughts and know them well so that I can drop in clues I didn't necessarily plan on if the PCs do something I didn't expect.

Failing that, if they are truly stumped I will let them have an intelligence (or appropriate knowledge) check to realise the significance of something I have put forward. I prefer to reward them for thinking of something to try but sometimes you just have to give them a nudge.

Hope that makes sense. I can try to give examples if you like.

As long as the players feel like they're making progress, even if it turns out to be a red-herring, I think you'll do fine. Just be careful to keep investigation scenarios from turning into situations where the players are just trying to guess what you're thinking. That can be maddeningly unfun.

Thanks for the input, fellas. If you do have examples I'd love to hear them! I don't feel like I railroad them, but I guess I can see that if I am playing the cults as being clever and good at hiding, they may wonder if there is only one way to crack it. I mean, they end up talking to lots of folks and getting nothing, just like would happen IRL. I have already decided that I'm going to try tossing them a bone and feeding them a little line, but I'm not too sure how to do that without it feeling too "easy" or like I'm just giving in. I really want them to come up with some good stuff for me and when they do I always reward it. But, no matter what, if seems like if you are talking to a cult member and asking them if they're cult members, they're going to start with "No!"

One way that I often use is to have some sort of enemy to the cult that are not neccessary an ally to the acolytes. This might be a rivaling cult, the local gang of gangsters who dislikes what the cult is up to (maybe because it cuts into their monopoly on violence) or something as simple as the local enforcers if the acolytes are working so deep underover that they cannot even identify themselves as inquisitorials.

With this trick I can have this other group give friendly hints to the acolytes, without coming forward and exposing themselves too much, they might after all be an illegal group on their own, or enforcers that are bribed/scared into silence but wants to help out secretly. Also a conflict between two illegitimate groups might cmpromise the security of both groups, thus leaving clues around. "why are there clawmarks on the wall here? This might be something else than a regular gang-shootout… we better call the inquisition!"

Properly executed this will give you a legitimate deu-ex-machina as well as illustrating that this is a moving living world with lot of groups with their own agendas.

Be prepared to have the adventure veer off your prepared path. Fortunately this sort of setup is rather dynamic and versatile if you simply prepare one or two NPCs that are heads of each organisation and try to roleplay them in your head. "So what would the Khorne cult do now that they know that their deamons have been spotted by members of the genestealer cult?"

My players say I make adventures by the Onion-Model. Partly that they have secrets in layers that they peel off to get to the truth, but mostly because everyone stinks and makes people cry ;-)

Best of Luck!

Most times, I (the Inquisitor) send the Acolytes to scrub the last dregs of some half-assed cult and they "stumble" upon something much bigger. There are always dupes and blinds and false fronts that are kept out of the main intel loop, and they will inadvertently drop the ball somewhere. Investigation into clues at that point is meant to "bait the hook", piquing the Acolytes' interest. My players usually dig deep from the very start, following every available lead, clue, or crumb, until they run up against the proverbial brick wall. It is at this point they will ask their superiors to put a team of info-collating specialists on the intel they've been able to dredge up, and the end result is usually something tertiary to go on, however tenuous, and the Acolytes resume from there.

Someone always makes a mistake, it's just a matter of time. Dregs screw the pooch often and regularly, trusted agents are more careful and circumspect, but can still miss a detail or three, and the ultimate player usually ends up being revealed by someone below in the chain (unless he/she gets particularly hasty).

Think of clue finding/giving as the plot devices a movie needs to further the story (in good movies, anyway…Prometheus fell apart after twenty-five minutes). I draw tree and spider diagrams to keep the flow of an investigation straight, take copious notes (since players always derail things) and generally make the lesser details up on the fly. I also let the players talk…a lot…and much of what they say drives the story, giving them a sense of accomplishment. I probably use 60%-75% of what the players say as the new direction, as it is sometimes better than what I had planned. Just need to remember to keep it interesting and flowing. Sitting hard on clues leads to bored players.

I tend to have a similar problem in making my plots too detailed and convoluted (I blame Tzeentch!)

As far as investigation goes, if the players are playing well, they deserve a clue. Even if it's just a tiny piece of a giant puzzle, at least it is progress. Sometimes, even red herrings fall into this.

Ultimately, it comes down to player reward. Depending on what player type you have in your group, most Dark Heresy players are going to want to further the plot, or at least feel like they are… and need to feel that they are being rewarded for their efforts.

In an abstracted form, think about treasure in DnD. Adventurers go into a dungeon, experience its story and overcome its obstacles, to get treasure! Now in Dark Heresy, think about an investigation like a dungeon, except the treasure is in clues, not gold pieces or items.

Example in use: In DnD the players in the dungeon performed really well this session, they need some sort of reward for trying so hard and overcoming some really difficult obstacles. Realistically, there wouldn't be a treasure that just appears, that would kind of ruin the suspension of disbelief… but what if they notice something out of the ordinary, one of the stone bricks on the wall seems loose with a perception check to notice the glint of something metal behind it.

In Dark Heresy, the players have planned what they're going to do tonight really well, I'm rather impressed that they are all rolling stealth checks to individually observe their best leads and set up surveillance systems. I wasn't exactly prepared for this, and I don't think it would actually accomplish anything in terms of the plot, the cult is far too intelligent to make any moves since they've been alerted the Inquisition is around. But their efforts should not be in vain.
Well, what could justify one of the cultists leaving, and what clue could he provide… Instead of saying nothing happens during your surveillance, a figure that appears normal, but has something unsettling about his appearance, walks out of Red Herring building, he places something into his pocket, (Perception check) and accidentally drops something else. There are people everywhere though, whatever it is that fell, it looks like it is about to get stepped on.
Let them retrieve it, but make it seem difficult, and then they get the puzzle piece that will point them in the right direction of what they should be investigating.

This is all assuming that you already have investigative plot points set up, and the players are playing well but just aren't hitting the right notes in the right places.

Furthermore, Page 8 in Damned Cities has a sidebar "For the GM: A Few Words of Advice on Running Mysteries" that gives brief, sound advice.