Have you ever had a conversation with a friend where in the middle of it they let on some details that you really didn't want to know?  It's times like these when we shake our heads and say, "Too much information, thanks."

Now let's change the scenario just a little.  Have you ever had a text box pop up in a video game that brought up some crucial information in such a heavy-handed way that you ended up feeling like you really didn't want to know it, or at least be told it in this fashion?  It's times like these when we shake our heads and say, "Does the developer really think I'm incompetent?  I would've rather figured this out on my own, thanks."

This article will be discussing the giving of information in an RPG and the often tenuous balance of letting the player discover things on their own vs. leaving them feeling clueless as to how to make progress.  This is a deceptively difficult question, but before we begin, let us be clear on our definitions.  In this article I will be using the term RPG to mean classic, menu-based RPGs of the kind that the OHR was chiefly designed to support.  Some of the following discussion may be applicable to other types of games as well, but such considerations shall be bypassed completely.  In addition, it will be assumed throughout the article that all 'information' under consideration has, in the author's mind, potential to be mysterious.  It is pointless to discuss when to make vague item descriptions for medical herbs that the author considers 'common knowledge' in the game world.  However, the mysterious elixir found deep in the forest, never tasted by mortal lips... now that may necessitate a bit more thought...

I: METHODS OF GIVING INFORMATION

Before deciding what's too much or too little, it may be helpful to think about how, exactly, information is given to players.  On a very broad level, it might be best to distinguish between two types of communication: textual and non-textual.  Textual sources of information are fairly easy to understand.  There's 'in-game' text, like messages from NPCs, or numbers indicating the damage of an attack.  There's also 'meta-game' text, for lack of a better word.  By this I mean text within the game but 'outside' of the live game world, like item-descriptions.  And then there's the oft-forgotten 'out-of-game' text, the manual.

Non-textual information can mean many different things.  To clarify the concept, let us use graphics as an example.  On the simplest level, a graphic easily distinguishable as a wall tells the player that he or she cannot walk there.  This is a very 'direct' form of non-textual communication.  On the other hand, an odd looking spot on a wall, or a crack, may tell a player that they should at least get up to it for a closer look (ie, a click of the space bar).  The result may be textual giving of information, but the odd wall-graphic was an 'indirect' form of non-textual communication.  Other examples might include the coloring of an enemy indicating a possible weakness, or the sound effect of a floorboard creaking when a player steps on a certain tile.

Using all of these methods in some kind of balance is a subject that could very well be an article unto itself, and we will not elaborate further on the various methods of giving information.  Instead we will focus on how much information to give, and when.  Our goal will be to have a somewhat systematic approach to making this choice.

II: CRITERIA FOR DECIDING HOW MUCH INFORMATION TO GIVE

Suppose, as the game author, we know a specific piece of information such as one of the following:

-the stairs on the right lead to a dead end
-this fire attack occasionally causes the target's attack power to go down as well
-it's not a good idea to use magic against this enemy
-the player needs to go to the cave in the south to progress the main storyline at the moment
-the player can go to the cave in the west anytime, where there is a very powerful piece of equipment

Which of these should be made clear to the player, and which should be left to him to discover on his own?  How should the answer to this question be decided?  That is the kernel of our problem, and while the answer certainly depends on many things, among which personal taste will certainly be included, still I feel that there are three main criteria that we should always consider regardless of the singular situation or our personal taste.  These are:

1. Reward for Knowledge
2. Punishment for Ignorance
3. Chances to Use/Learn

To aid with the explanation of these three criteria, I will be using the following visual scale:

(important to tell clearly)<------0------>(let them figure it out)

Imagine the scale above as a number line, with larger positive numbers indicating that the information should remain obscure to the player, whereas larger negative numbers indicate the importance of telling the information to the player clearly and directly right away.  A value near zero would indicate that personal preference can be used freely.  If we can assign a relative number (positive or negative, according to their definitions above) to each criterion for a given piece of information, we can sum our three values to see more clearly how much information we want to give to the player.  To do that, we should examine each criterion more closely.

II.1: REWARD FOR KNOWLEDGE

Scale:

(little to no effect on game)0-------->(game breaking reward)

By reward for knowledge, I mean the effect on the game that the knowledge of the information can achieve for the player.  The scale above is meant to indicate that if the reward for info is minimal, this criterion can be assigned a value near or possibly equal to zero.  The stronger the reward, the larger the positive value that should be assigned to it.  A game breaking reward, such as equipment that vastly increases some various stats, would be assigned a very large positive value.  Rewards in this sense should not be assigned negative values, as no positive reward should attach weight to the need to tell a player about some piece of information.

II.2: PUNISHMENT FOR IGNORANCE

Scale:

(death or irreversible harm)<--------0(little to no effect on game)

By punishment for ignorance, I mean the effect on the game that the lack of knowledge of the information can achieve against the player.  Similarly to the rewards scale, a minimal punishment can be assigned a value near zero.  Then the harsher the punishment, the larger the negative value that should be assigned to it.  Death, or something irrevesible like the permanent loss of a powerful item or skill, would be assigned a very large negative value.  Punishment in this sense should not be assigned positive values, as no negative punishment should attach weight to the need to hide information from a player.

II.3: CHANCES TO USE/LEARN

Scale:

(used only once)<----0------------->(used throughout the game)

By chances to use/learn, I mean a judgement on how often the knowledge (or ignorance) of the information will have an effect on the player.  If a piece of information is only relevant at one point in the game, it would be right to assign a negative number to this criterion, perhaps only a small one, as this means that the player has, in some sense, only one chance to get something right (although this fact alone should not be 'negative' enough to outweigh a strong reward if the punishment for ignorance is negligible).  The more chances, so to speak, that the player has to use and/or learn the given information, the more positive the value that should be assigned to this criterion.  Certainly if a player will have many chances to learn something, there is less reason to make it clear to them right away, unless the punishment for ignorance is very large.

III: EXAMPLES USING THE CRITERIA

To get a feeling for using this system, let us examine a simple, fairly trivial example from above.  Suppose that, as the game author, we know that the stairs on the right in a given map lead to a dead end.  Should this be made obvious to the player in some way?  (HOW to make it obvious is another subject altogether; perhaps a signpost that explains that the right staircase leads to the barracks, while the left staircase leads to the upper tower where the player wants to go...?)  Let us try using our criteria:

1.Reward for Knowledge - The reward would be progress in the correct direction.  Only a small bit of progress perhaps, so no serious effect on gameplay.  In my estimation, this would be a small positive value, maybe +2 if I was forced to quantify it:

(little to no effect on game)0-(+2)------>(game breaking reward)

2.Punishment for Ignorance - The punishment for ignorance, strictly speaking, would have to be guessing which way to go.  This gives a 50-50 chance of going the wrong way.  If the dead-end is very far away this could be seen as bad, but certainly not severe enough to warrant a large negative value.  I would personally call this -1:

(death or irreversible harm)<------(-1)-0(little to no effect on game)

3.Chances to Use/Learn - This is a strange question to ask for information like this.  On the one hand, the info is only used in one place, but one could argue that the player has as many chances as he likes to learn it (if he can easily return to the hallway between the two staircases).  This leans me towards assigning a small positive value, perhaps another +2:

(used only once)<----0-(+2)---------->(used throughout the game)

Summing up our values, we arrive at +2-1+2= +3, which seems to me to indicate that it doesn't really matter that much, but we might as well let the player figure it out themselves, which seems to match up with the triviality of the example:

(important to tell clearly)<------0-(+3)--->(let them figure it out)

On the other hand, let us examine an extreme example.  Suppose, as above, that we know that there is a cave to the west that the player can visit any time, and that there is a very strong piece of equipment there.  How important is it to tell the player?

1.Reward for Knowledge - The value here would depend on how strong "very strong" means.  For the sake of argument, lets suppose that this equipment involves a sword that can mow down giant Terminator-style robots in two hits.  Seems pretty serious to me.  How about a +10?

(little to no effect on game)0-------(+10)->(game breaking reward)

2.Punishment for Ignorance - This would depend on just how devastating the Terminators are without the equipment.  Probably pretty devastating, but not certain death.  After all, John Conner's parents managed to destroy one, and they didn't have any cool equipment at all.  Plus, even without knowing anything about the cave, there's a chance the player will explore the cave entirely on his own.  Maybe a -5, or even -6.

(death or irreversible harm)<---(-6)-----0(little to no effect on game)

3.Chances to Use/Learn - This criterion always seems to have several sides to it, but here I think it's safe to say that, unless there's only one Terminator hanging around, knowing where the equipment is will be relevant for a while.  Even more importantly, since the player can go to the cave at any time, he has many chances to learn, and so I feel comfortable assigning a high positive value such as +10.

(used only once)<----0--------(+10)--->(used throughout the game)

This totals to +10-6+10= +14, which would indicate that there's probably very little reason to make it clear to the player what's over in that cave if we want exploration to be a factor in our game:

(important to tell clearly)<---------0--------(+16)->(let them figure it out)

It is interesting to note what changes in a scenario can mean for our analysis.  Suppose that the Terminators are nearly indestructible without the equipment.  A much higher negative value for the punishment (and we are talking about death, so it may demand something like -20, for example) could turn the whole thing around and make it important to tell the player more.

A smaller variation on the higher negative value would be if the cave were very well hidden.  Then the chance of the player exploring the cave on their own diminishes, and this would bump up the negative 'punishment' value.  This, in conjunction with a somewhat weaker reward, could be enough to move the sum into the gray area near zero.

On the other hand, if we keep the punishment at -6 (pain, but bearable) and instead decree that the cave is only open for one small period of time, the Chances to Learn takes a turn into the negative (say -5) and we would get a very small negative total (+10-6-5= -1), which would indicate the need to give some small direction perhaps, but not much seeing as the player does not really NEED the equipment (manageable punishment), and finding it would really make certain battles much much easier (very great reward).  But if the player misses it, they may never get a chance to see it, so it would be nice to tell them something small about it.

IV: REMARKS ON THE CRITERIA AND THE SYSTEM

All three criteria discussed above are certainly open to interpretation, but there are some general guidelines that can be helpful when trying to judge the giving of information in this way.  One is being sure to distinguish between the information itself and its rewards (or punishments for ignorance).  Using an above example, the ignorance of the dead end to the right is not the same thing as actually going right.  Thus, the punishment for ignorance was only a 50-50 chance of going the wrong way.  Similarly, the knowledge of the equipment in the cave to the west is not the same as getting the equipment.  If the equipment is still very difficult to obtain in the cave, then the reward for knowing where it is can rightfully be assigned a smaller positive value.  This was not discussed above.

Thinking in this way ensures that we consider the chances of the player achieving the end effect 'randomly' despite his ignorance, or still being challenged for the reward despite his knowledge.  Another good illustration of this thinking involves two of the other examples mentioned earlier:
-this fire attack occasionally causes the target's attack power to go down as well
-it's not a good idea to use magic against this enemy

The first piece of information is helpful to know certainly, but by itself it does not directly indicate when it might be a good idea to use the fire attack.  I would assign a fairly small positive reward value to this piece of info.  The second example, on the other hand, gives a much more direct reward, probably leading directly to the defeat of the given enemy.  This would garner a stronger positive value for the reward criterion.  This seems to fall in line with a rather natural mindset: the effects of a player's abilities are usually communicated clearly, but enemy strengths/weaknesses should usually remain somewhat more obscure.

Another general guideline is to beware of information with a large variation amongst the three criteria.  What I mean is that if we have a piece of information with both a very strong, almost game breaking reward (large positive value) and a very severe, almost game breaking  punishment (large negative value), we should think very carefully about whether this thing (a very strong, very necessary, weapon for example) is a good idea at all.  Such a thing begs to be both a secret and a clear necessity, but it can't be both.  As a secret, it could be very frustrating for the player, whereas being clear it can make for simplistic and transparent gameplay, where the player has very little to think about.  In RPGs, where tactics and thought typically outweigh physical challenges like reaction time and finger dexterity, this is usually not a desirable choice for the author to have to make, and usually means that the 'thing' under consideration should probably be refashioned so that either its rewards are not so high, or the punishment for its lack should not be so harsh.

Following along these lines of thought, we notice that it may be most helpful to consider these three criteria in the creation of ideas for a game, rather than using them afterwards as judges of how to communicate the ideas.  Thus when trying to think of a side-quest, say, that we want to be somewhat secret to the player (we want the challenge to lie in discovering the quest), we consider the criteria above and lean towards a sidequest with a very helpful reward, but one that is not very necessary to survival.  If we want the side-quests to be more obvious (perhaps we want the challenge to come from the performance of the quest, rather than in figuring out what to do), it may be better to tone down the strength of the rewards a bit, while making them a bit more necessary (the extreme of this would be something like a story-related item that only serves to progress the plot).

Finally, when we consider the third criterion, we see that if we want to have things for the player to figure out by themselves, we ought to make them relevant throughout the game inasmuch as we can.  In terms of knowledge of quests, this means having sidequests that are open at any time, such as a hidden cave in a place that the player will visit throughout the game.  In terms of knowledge of battle tactics, this could mean having the same enemies (with the same weaknesses) repeat throughout a game, but this is usually somewhat incompatible with RPG stat growth.  Instead, it is more helpful to think of patterns for the player to recognize among his enemies.  Some may feel intuitively obvious, such as icy creatures being weak to fire.  But it can be more exciting for the player to discover hidden patterns, like having all enemies made of liquid or gas especially susceptible to 'slow-down' magic, which can be described to the player as "slows circulation and airflow in the target, lowering reaction speed" or something that seems to make sense with affecting liquid and gas more.  This is where the imagination must take over, and ideas for hidden (yet consistent) patterns can be searched for.  Not just among enemies, but perhaps in map designs (all enemy towers conclude at the top is a common pattern that players usually take advantage of - they instinctively look for stairs upward rather than downward - what other map-based patterns could there be?), NPC conversations (perhaps certain NPCs aid the player more if they respond to questions in certain ways, and this is consistent throughout various towns...?), and possibly many others.

The search for patterns with which to challenge the player's thinking is a subject entirely of its own, and we shall not inquire further here.  Instead let us conclude with the reminder that, as in all aspects of game design, playtesting is key.  But playtesting to judge the effectiveness of the clarity or secrecy of hints is not easy for the author alone, and this is one area where outside playtesters will certainly be needed.  Nevertheless, the author can (and should) playtest regarding the three criteria mentioned above.  How rewarding is the information itself?  How punishing is the ignorance?  How relevant is the information throughout the game?  Think of these things when creating your gameworld, and continue to think about them while playtesting your game, and you should be well on your way towards balancing the giving of information in your game.