Questions: GM Secret Weapons?

May 12, 2026

I was watching the most recent Quinns Quest Reviews, covering Stonetop, when I was struck with the most important tidbit of wisdom I've yet heard in the RPG hobby at large.

Yeah, that's right. The most important thing I've heard about RPGs ever. Am I being dramatic? Probably. My wife tells me I'm a dramatic guy, and I trust her opinion on me. But one thing that Quinns pointed out made me understand something about running games that had never clicked for me before, and that I'm not sure is conventional wisdom.

You see, Stonetop is a Powered by the Apocalypse game. I don't know a ton about PBTA games, but what I know about Stonetop is that your players get involved in the worldbuilding, in defining the life of the world. Players are handed a ton of creative license, the authority to inject their own ideas into the story and the setting. Some GMs who consider their worlds too precious might find this objectionable, but they need to get over themselves. (Note to self: work on getting over myself)

It's an excellent feeling, as a player, to be brought into the club and be permitted, nay, encouraged, to contribute to the setting. You make an offhand comment and now there's a new NPC that will come back later. You are asked a question, give whatever answer comes to the top of your mind, and now that's canon. That's special! I think this is a part of the PBTA ideal, but I could be wrong, because again, I'm pretty dumb about these styles of play still. Players get brought in and collaborate on the story and the setting much more directly than in other styles of play such as OSR or "trad" games, where they mostly impact the world through their actions and how those actions reverberate. (Although I will say this - seeing your actions impact the world actually feels so much cooler and so much more meaningful than just being asked a question and answering it.)

But it's not a free for all. I mean, it could be, but the more free and open it is, the less coherent your setting and story becomes. That's why books have one, or rarely two authors. A book written by ten people? Too many cooks. A camel (a horse by committee.)

How does the setting stay tight and coherent? In Quinns' words, "It's a cheat."

The questions that you ask in Stonetop are so leading they would be thrown out in a court of law faster than you can shout "Objection!" and point dramatically. You lead them in two main ways.

1. Lead them towards the feeling you want to evoke. If you want them to feel on edge, ask them "What does your character hear but not see that makes you feel anxious and on edge?" If you want them to feel comfortable and at ease, ask "What about the taste of this food and drink reminds you of Stonetop?"
2. Lead them towards the world you've already built. "What did the crinwin steal the last time they raided the village?" "What traditions do the Hillfolk follow that you find so intriguing and admirable?"

In the first type, you're steering the tone of the scene in the direction you want. You're cheating. You don't have to do the spooky noises and describe the spooky scene, or change the lighting in the room, or outright tell the players they feel paranoid - you get them to do it for you. You shove them into the pit and ask them to report back what they find at the bottom. They're in it now - they have to be waist deep in the fiction in order to answer your questions.

In the second type, you're giving them lore dumps disguised as collaboration. These questions are loaded! They are telling the players something and asking them for window dressing. How despicable!

But, and this is important, it's not deceptive at all. You're not asking them a question and ignoring the answer - you are incorporating their answers. You take notes on their answers and make sure it comes around again. You are also not asking them questions where the answer doesn't matter - if they hear the shrill cry of a predator in the wood, you know there is something hunting. If the crinwin stole a baby in their last raid, you have adventure hooks and stakes cooked right into the pie.

So it's cheating, but in a way players are definitely going to appreciate.

My question, to myself and to you, is what makes great questions in this mode of play? I'll take a quick, top of the head attempt at answering this, but it's something that I'm still actively contemplating, so my rubrick is likely to change. Here's what I think.

1. The question needs to make the players feel something
2. The question should contain information that the characters already know that the players don't yet.
3. The answer to the question has to have an impact, whether it's small or large - the answer has to mean something.
4. The question should be part of setting the scene. (This also draws me to a different thought - when do questions stop? In my understanding, you ask questions to set the scene, and generally that's where the questions end - once action in the scene starts, you switch to a more call and response mode of play.)
5. The question should be tailored to the character. If a character has a backstory that's related to the Fae, that's the character that should get most of the questions about the Fae.

Lastly, asking good questions is a hard skill. It can be improved on. It can be practiced. It needs to be practiced. I'm excited to learn more about asking good questions. They need to be tight, and they also need to be tailored towards your players and their styles. If you have more trad/OSR-y players, they probably need questions that lead them a lot farther and a lot more concretely than players who are experienced story game players who are more familiar with and experienced with asking bigger, more open ended questions. So tighten them up according to your table's needs.

Anyways, go cheat your players. They'll love it.