PDA

View Full Version : Is the GM allowed to keep secrets?



Talakeal
2011-04-06, 03:27 PM
In a different thread of mine we were discussing a hypothetical situation where the player's performed their attack on the enemy in a manner that would make it much more difficult than the DM intended. In the example it was attacking an evil wizard while he is in the process of negotiating an alliance with a red dragon, and thus having to fight them both at once.

I asked whether or not the DM should simply hand wave the dragon away because the fight is now "over CRed", or should continue with the game as written. Personally I think it is cheating on the part of the DM, even though in this case it is cheating in the player's favor, and would be just as bad as having a red dragon appear out of nowhere if the player's got the drop on the evil wizard and would otherwise make short work of him.

Anyway, the following response was posted:


This kinda of thinking makes me think you will never understand why your players disliked your campaign. Using secret information that a player does not know to screw over their well-thought out plan is railroading in the highest degree. They most likely felt that you were robbing them of success which you were. If the players don't know something about your world it is your fault never theirs. All they can ever know about your world and your plot is what you tell them. If the players don't know that dragon may be there it is only because you never hinted it might be. If I was DMing I would not have the dragon there because it really would only be there to stop their plan from working. It is okay to keep secrets form your players but these should never be used to stop the players actions from having an effect on the world. If I was a player and my DM told that because of something I had no idea about my actions have meant nothing
I wouldn't play with them again.

This post, frankly, blew my mind, and I felt it was worthy of starting its own topic rather than muddying up my existing thread. In all my years of DMing I have never heard that it was unfair of a DM to have secrets which negatively affect the players.

Most games have investigation rules in them, for example D&D has the search and gather information skills. I have both ran and played in numerous games, as well as reading published modules, where player investigation and insight was a part of the game, and some of them which had totally unpredictable surprises and plot twists. I never had a problem with it, or even considered that it could be a problem unless (like anything) executed poorly.

However, Jamin makes it seem like this is always a horrible thing worthy of immediate DM booting. Am I totally out to lunch on this, have I completely missed some rule of gaming so basic that it has never once been pointed out to me in 20 years?

I wrote out a lengthy rebuttal to his post in the other thread if anyone wants to read it:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10718333&postcount=69
Although it does not deal entirely with the question at hand, and is a bit of a rant.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 03:31 PM
It's really something that depends on the individual player. Some can't stand the feel of losing control, which I think is a psychological issue that has bigger repercussions than those in your game.

EDIT: As an aside, I hate GMing for a group that just wants me to be the computer with no input other than NPC control and dice rolling. If that's what you're after, play Neverwinter Nights.

Xefas
2011-04-06, 03:34 PM
I think the situation you're referring to is less about "keeping secrets" and more about "The DM is out to tell his own story whether it's fun for the players or not". If the DM screws over the players without them having any meaningful choice in the matter, then that sucks, and there's no way to really justify it.

As for keeping secrets, I only think that sort of problem will arise if the DM has already pre-planned how some things are going to happen in the story. If the DM has already planned something, independent of the players' decisions, then that's railroading. Some people are fine with that, some aren't.

If the DM lets things evolve organically, then there's nothing for him to really keep secret.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 03:36 PM
I can see a situation which might cause some problems, though. Say, for example,you've been building up this mystical shang-gri-la like place for half the campaign as a place of wonders and magic via NPC conversation, home to a magical sword of power and might.

PCs go there, find a smelly muck hole, because it's just a myth. Which you've been keeping "secret" the whole time.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-04-06, 03:40 PM
Ummm... Wow. Yes, they're allowed. Of course they are. Removing an opponent because the PCs dropped in? No. Just no. They can have the encounter, the world doesn't revolve around the PCs and 5% of encounters are supposed to be "Overwhelming" anyway. Sure, give them a round of surprise to get away, they did just barge in unexpected, but they don't get a free pass just because they didn't know it was there. The idea that something negative can only happen when the PCs know it's coming is completely alien to me. This post may be exaggerated, but you're not alone in thinking that Jamin's response is odd.

The Big Dice
2011-04-06, 03:41 PM
I can see a situation which might cause some problems, though. Say, for example,you've been building up this mystical shang-gri-la like place for half the campaign as a place of wonders and magic via NPC conversation, home to a magical sword of power and might.

PCs go there, find a smelly muck hole, because it's just a myth. Which you've been keeping "secret" the whole time.

Why is that a problem?

If the GM doesn't keep secrets, then in terms of the metagame, the players will know in advance what's coming. And that's no fun. But in other respects, say an NPC has an agenda of their own, or the PCs are being set up as dupes.

A favourite example of that from my own gaming past came from Cyberpunk. The PCs were hired to extract a research scientist from a secure facility. They were given an address to take this person to, but when they got there they were shocked to see that it was a police station and there had been an anonymous tip off about them coming with a kidnapped scientist. If I hadn'y kept secrets, they'd have known in advance that the whole thing was a scheme set up by a corporate. One they'd managed to foil a few of his plans, so he decided to take steps.

It's never the GM's fault if the players assume everything they get told is exactly what it seems.

Xefas
2011-04-06, 03:41 PM
I can see a situation which might cause some problems, though. Say, for example,you've been building up this mystical shang-gri-la like place for half the campaign as a place of wonders and magic via NPC conversation, home to a magical sword of power and might.

PCs go there, find a smelly muck hole, because it's just a myth. Which you've been keeping "secret" the whole time.

There are a lot of variables that could impact whether that is a good way of doing it in that situation or a bad way.

In general, however, I would say that the GM shouldn't decide beforehand whether it's a myth, or if it's real. Either decide which one is more awesome the very moment before the reveal, or let the players decide which outcome is more enjoyable for them.

That is just a generalization, however. There could be a thousand variables out there that would sway me in a different direction if I had more details on the specific group, GM, system, game, etc.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 03:44 PM
In general, however, I would say that the GM shouldn't decide beforehand whether it's a myth, or if it's real. Either decide which one is more awesome the very moment before the reveal, or let the players decide which outcome is more enjoyable for them.

I agree with this, because my GM style generally involves vague sketches followed by prodigious amounts of spinning.

However, that's just me. Other GMs and players would prefer it in a far different way, and their way is equally valid.

TheThan
2011-04-06, 03:45 PM
No you didn’t miss anything.

As long as your secret information is not explicitly designed for you to kill the players then there is nothing wrong with it. I take it the evil wizard’s attempt to coerce the dragon into working for him was all part of his master plan. A plan I bet the PCs only had vague glimpses of anyway.

However It’s my opinion that secrets are there to be revealed. The PCs are there to stop the bad guys, that involves unraveling their plans and schemes, which are probably secrets. Face it if everyone already knows where the hidden artifact is, or that there’s a daemon worshiping cult in the castle’s basement. Then what’s stopping NPCS in the world from doing anything about it?

SO to sum up, keeping secrets is fine, telling the party the evil wizard’s plan from the very beginning is akin to reading the end of the book before starting in on the first chapter. Slowly revealing these secrets through play is part of what makes being a Dm so fun and rewarding.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 03:49 PM
In this specific example, it seems like there was a timeline for the evil wizard. It may have gone something like this:

Day 1: Be evil.
Day 2: Negotiate Alliance with Big Red.
Day 3: ???
Day 4: Take over world. (Or, Profit.)

Had the PC's decided to attack him on Day 1, they may have beaten him easily, but they decided to attack him on Day 2, correct so far?

Okay, they decide to attack on Day 2, right while he is in the middle of negotiating with Big Red. Bad idea is bad.

Really, had the PCs gotten an idea of his timeline (through research, spying, or what-have-you) they could have found out that Day 2 was a bad day to interrupt the wizard. It sounds like they didn't do any information gathering, and just ran into the middle of the negotiations haphazardly. It's their own fault for not gathering enough information to make informed decisions about their plan. The world does not revolve around the PCs, events continue to happen with or without them. PCs don't get to know the BBEGs plan, simply by virtue of being PCs. They have to figure it out by doing some sort of active information gathering.

Hand waving Big Red away wouldn't teach the players anything about planning. It would also, most certainly, foster a sense of entitlement in the players that just shouldn't be there. The DM had every right to keep the BBEG's plan a "secret," since the PCs didn't do anything to find out what he was planning.

Talakeal
2011-04-06, 03:52 PM
The dragon and the wizard never actually happened in game, it was simply what Jamin was responding to in his post. It is an analagy for a far more complex scenario in a game I ran last year that blew up in my face.
If you wan't the full story see the thread I link to in my first post.

Kylarra
2011-04-06, 03:53 PM
Like I said in your other thread, the problem lies when you've got effectively a doomsday scenario that your players aren't expecting to be looking for. Sure you technically wrote it up and it legitimately occurred because the players completely ignored or otherwise missed the hooks you put out to lead them to it, but it's not gonna make them feel any better about it or make it feel less fiaty until you try to explain every single hook they missed.

Goober4473
2011-04-06, 03:56 PM
I asked whether or not the DM should simply hand wave the dragon away because the fight is now "over CRed", or should continue with the game as written. Personally I think it is cheating on the part of the DM, even though in this case it is cheating in the player's favor, and would be just as bad as having a red dragon appear out of nowhere if the player's got the drop on the evil wizard and would otherwise make short work of him.

It depends on if they know the dragon is there, having seen it, etc. If not, the DM can do whatever. Reality in D&D is very much solipsistic. Nothing really exists until the players percieve, even if you have a well-fleshed out sandbox. Until then, it's no worse to change something the players haven't seen yet, immediately before they see it, than it is to plan it that way in the first place. They won't know the difference. If you want them to have a balanced fight with the BBEG, cool. If you want to show them the error of not investigating, keep the dragon. If you want something in between, make it a servant of the dragon that's not qutie as deadly. Whatever will be the msot fun and tell the best story.

For instance, keeping a good random encounter handy (or a few good components to mash together at a moment's notice), that can be dropped into most locations, and be linked into the plot somehow no matter when and where it happens, in case the party does something you have no idea how to handle, could be a good idea. They'll never know it wasn't always supposed to happen that way, which helps immersion, and you don't need to make the choice of railroading their decisions or having no idea what to do.

Of course always putting in their path whatever you had next planned will probably feel pretty railroady unless you're very crafty, because encounters will start to feel out of place, and the order forced. The idea is you can do it to a degree, so long as it still makes sense to the players, and doesn't invalidate their choices.

nedz
2011-04-06, 03:57 PM
A DM has a whole world under their control. If they were to share out all that information (assuming for the moment that they'd fleshed it all out) the players would get very bored with the information overload.
Part of the fun of playing is exploration, how can that happen if you know everything already?
Even just in terms of a plot-line, in order to do meaningful plot exposition the information must be revealed in some measured way or again boredom ensues. It would actually be railroading to hand out this information in a pre-planned way rather than as a response to player driven actions (investigations, whatever).

Is this a GM keeping secrets ? Possibly, but thats no bad thing.

I had an instance of this being done badly in a game I played in a couple of years ago. I was trying to decide, before my initiative, which one of two actions I was going to take. The more effective action was limited by the HD of the targets. The GM blurted out the opponents HD before my turn, invalidating my determinism.

Now in terms of Jamin's point:
If the PCs go and Leroy in before scouting the situation, then they have only themselves to blame. It would only be railroading IF the GM added the Dragon specifically to foil their plan, rather than as part of a wider plot.

LibraryOgre
2011-04-06, 03:58 PM
I disagree with Jamin most heartily. In some cases, this is completely true. If your players don't know a common deity's symbol on sight, or what the law on swords is in a big city near their home, then that's the DM's fault. However, there's a lot about the world that people are ignorant of, even in days of instant communication and huge masses of information.

Now, if I REALLY want the story to go forward, I might have the dragon say something like "You know, they're hear for you. I think I'll see how you handle this before I decide if you're worth my time"... but if they jump into an attack on a wizard and a dragon, they deserve what the subtle and quick to anger do to the crunchy and good with ketchup.

Xefas
2011-04-06, 04:00 PM
The world does not revolve around the PCs, events continue to happen with or without them.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

At the heart of things, I think a lot of the friction between players of D&D comes from its conflicting interests of being both a tactics game and a roleplaying game. Which, it can be both, but eventually one has to be more important than the other.

In a primarily tactics game, I believe it is the GM's obligation to:
Reward good tactics.
Punish poor tactics.
Place the integrity of tactical decisions over the elegance of storytelling.

In a primarily roleplaying games, I believe it is the GM's obligation to:
Reward good roleplaying.
Place the integrity of the collaborative narrative over the minutia of tactical decision making.

The last in both categories are typically why people argue over which way is the right way to play D&D. Because the game books tell you both.

However, in both cases, I would say it is a friend's obligation to place the enjoyment of their living, sentient, sapient, human friends over the integrity of any and all fictional plans, systems, mechanics, and what-have-you.

This is purely subjective, and I don't think we can 100% accurately dispute whether the decision made by the OP was the right one or not, unless we are a part of his group. I will simply say that, at that moment, the GM should have made the decision that was most fun for the group at the time, regardless of other factors. Some groups like to be punished for poor tactics - I do, when I'm playing a tactics game. Some groups don't - I certainly don't when I'm playing a roleplaying game.

There are too many variables to say definitively one way or the other.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 04:00 PM
I disagree with Jamin most heartily. In some cases, this is completely true. If your players don't know a common deity's symbol on sight, or what the law on swords is in a big city near their home, then that's the DM's fault. However, there's a lot about the world that people are ignorant of, even in days of instant communication and huge masses of information.

Now, if I REALLY want the story to go forward, I might have the dragon say something like "You know, they're hear for you. I think I'll see how you handle this before I decide if you're worth my time"... but if they jump into an attack on a wizard and a dragon, they deserve what the subtle and quick to anger do to the crunchy and good with ketchup.
This forum needs a "Like" button. :smallbiggrin:

bloodtide
2011-04-06, 04:03 PM
Yes.

In order for the game to be fun, the DM should keep everything secret. That way, the players can only play the game as their characters.

There are two main thoughts here:

1.It's a Game like any Other--The Dm should sit back and tell the players everything about the game. Monster stats, the plot, all information. The idea is that the Players are playing the game and need/want to know all this information. The players, in turn, 'pretend' to not know all the information and then (attempt) to play out a character in the game world as they 'pretend' not to know things. This can make for a very dull game, even if you have perfect players that can really 'pretend' not to know everything.

2.Role-playing is Different--In this type of game, once it starts, the players only know exactly what the characters know. For the duration of the game, the players and characters are the same. So if the character in the game world does not know about it, then the players also do not know.


But as for the OP idea. So say the players wanted to attack an evil wizard and a dragon at the same time...a CR100 encounter, or whatever. They are free to do so.

Though as a DM, would this happen, most dragons would just sit back and watch(unless attacked). A dragon can care less if some evil wizard is attacked or even killed. To a dragon, if the wizard is such a fool that he can be killed easily, then he is not worth being an ally. The dragon might also like to watch the fight and see how 'tough' the wizard is. Not to mention the ultimate of 'saving' the wizard at the last round, and then forcing the wizard into a very, very, one sided alliance. And so on and so on.

The Big Dice
2011-04-06, 04:05 PM
I will simply say that, at that moment, the GM should have made the decision that was most fun for the group at the time, regardless of other factors. Some groups like to be punished for poor tactics - I do, when I'm playing a tactics game. Some groups don't - I certainly don't when I'm playing a roleplaying game.
This. I'm a strong advocate of the GM making calls that will ultimately enhance the experience of everyone involved in the game. And knowing the people at your table is important here, because each group is different.

That said, I don't see why poor tactics shouldn't be punished in a tactical or roleplaying situation. There's really no difference to my mind. Poor tactics can be choosing the wrong way to approach an important NPC as much as it can be having the Rogue with a rapier not using Sneak Attack until he hits 5th level. And I've seen both happen, often from the same player.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-06, 04:06 PM
SO to sum up, keeping secrets is fine, telling the party the evil wizard’s plan from the very beginning is akin to reading the end of the book before starting in on the first chapter. Slowly revealing these secrets through play is part of what makes being a Dm so fun and rewarding.
This.

What Jamin is getting at here is that no DM can reasonably be upset that his Players failed to figure something out. As the DM, he can always provide additional clues to prod the PCs into figuring things out. Additionally, it is too easy to get caught up in your head as a DM - with all the facts in front of you, you can forget what information PCs actually know.

As a rule of thumb if my Players seem confused or are otherwise not picking up on the plot I do the following:
(1) Drop an Additional Clue
It never hurts to have one more go :smallwink:

(2) Ask the Players to "sum up" the adventure so far
This helps you get a sense of what your Players are thinking about. If you're lucky, you'll discover they actually have been paying attention to your clues. More often you'll discover that they have misremembered information you've given them and this is a good opportunity to correct their misrepresentation. If they have absolutely nothing to say about the hooks you've given them, you can add a mention of "don't forget about..." and see if that turns on any lightbulbs. If that doesn't help then...

(3) Stick a Hook in their way
Find something from your Players' statements in step 2 and drag a hook across it. If your Players are convinced that some random NPC is totally behind everything, alter your plot so that he is related in some way. If your Players are going to knock over a warehouse for no good reason, include a cache of Plot Relevant Documents that were being hidden there because nobody expected them.

The best way to get someone to take your hook is to stick it in bait they're already going for :smallamused:
Of course, if your Players really don't care about your secret plot, they're not going to work with you unless you make them care about it - without making them feel like you're forcing them into it. It's a delicate operation, so I usually recommend just developing whatever plot they're interested in and placing your A-Plot on the back-burner for the time being.

Ranos
2011-04-06, 04:07 PM
This depends a lot on the game. In something like call of chthulu ? You BETTER keep some damn secrets. In something light-hearted like mutants&masterminds or spirit of the century though ? Yeaaah, maybe you should keep it to a minimum. I mean, if you have a huge notebook full of "world notes" and your players have seen pretty much none of it during the game, then what good is it, really ? Those games thrive on show, don't tell, and show as much as you can, as soon as you can.

For something like 3.5, it really depends on the GM's style and the mood of the game.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 04:07 PM
Poor tactics can be choosing the wrong way to approach an important NPC as much as it can be having the Rogue with a rapier not using Sneak Attack until he hits 5th level. And I've seen both happen, often from the same player.Yeesh. :smalleek:
That sounds painful (for the DM).

Typewriter
2011-04-06, 04:09 PM
Like I said in your other thread, the problem lies when you've got effectively a doomsday scenario that your players aren't expecting to be looking for. Sure you technically wrote it up and it legitimately occurred because the players completely ignored or otherwise missed the hooks you put out to lead them to it, but it's not gonna make them feel any better about it or make it feel less fiaty until you try to explain every single hook they missed.

In one of my campaigns the party found out about a lich who had been buying the dead and having them shipped to him from all around the world for his giant undead making vats. He already had thousands upon thousands.

Later in the campaign one of the party members found a teleportation circle in the middle of a populated city that led to the undead kingdom. Rather than find this at all alarming he said, "Meh", and didn't tell anyone.

The party had either ignored or missed every other hint relating to the fact that this army was about to invade every major city.

I could have just decided that it takes longer for them to prepare, and kept urging the party to do that, or I could have done away with that plot line.

Instead the next campaign was about a world that had been completely overrun by the armies of a mad lich, and the players were in the resistance. They actually really enjoyed seeing how their inaction caused such mayhem.


If your players don't trust you then fiat doesn't matter. It's fiat to change the world around the players actions instead of staying consistent, it's fiat to change the world to screw the players over. Doesn't matter if it goes good or bad for your players, and it doesn't matter whether or not you're doing it. If they think you're screwing them over then the problem isn't fiat.

Zaranthan
2011-04-06, 04:11 PM
Though as a DM, would this happen, most dragons would just sit back and watch(unless attacked). A dragon can care less if some evil wizard is attacked or even killed. To a dragon, if the wizard is such a fool that he can be killed easily, then he is not worth being an ally. The dragon might also like to watch the fight and see how 'tough' the wizard is. Not to mention the ultimate of 'saving' the wizard at the last round, and then forcing the wizard into a very, very, one sided alliance. And so on and so on.

I am totally stealing this idea for my next campaign. Now I just need to make it seem like it's not a set-up.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2011-04-06, 04:14 PM
I disagree with Jamin most heartily. In some cases, this is completely true. If your players don't know a common deity's symbol on sight, or what the law on swords is in a big city near their home, then that's the DM's fault. However, there's a lot about the world that people are ignorant of, even in days of instant communication and huge masses of information.

This. There are some things that you shouldn't keep hidden from players: laws in their cities are a good example. If it's common knowledge that "if X than Y," and players unknowingly do X, it's the DM's fault for not making them partial to this common knowledge. Of course, exceptions exist, but, in general, if everyone knows "if X than Y," or if a PC would reasonably know it given his or her set of skills and experiences, than yes, you should tell them. Also, in a case where "if X, then you die" exists, then the PCs should at least have some sort of warning to prevent instant death. An example of this, from another thread, was a Vampire game where consuming Demon Blood resulted in instant death...if the players have never heard anything about this, them dying is the GM's fault. If, on the other hand, you've dropped hints to that effect, you've done your job as a DM.

BlueWizard
2011-04-06, 04:15 PM
A DM must be adaptable.

I like secrets from players, those are the ones to be discovered, or not. And many, many times my master-story plans have been altered, much to my dismay. Sometimes, even greater stories are born from the PCs exploits, or at other times a crazed PC must get put down.

Goober4473
2011-04-06, 04:19 PM
What Jamin is getting at here is that no DM can reasonably be upset that his Players failed to figure something out. As the DM, he can always provide additional clues to prod the PCs into figuring things out.

This reminds me of user interface design. If the user fails to use the interface correctly, it's the interface's fault. Always.

Translated into D&D: If you have dumb players, and they don't figure out simple stuff, which is critical to the plot, that's your fault for not getting the information across better. Not to say don't punish stupidity in general. I just mean when something is really critical to the plot, it's on you to make sure the players get it, or to make a new plot (including things like the lich example above, where the original plot happens anyways, but now there's new plot to deal with).

bladesyz
2011-04-06, 04:20 PM
Like I said in your other thread, the problem lies when you've got effectively a doomsday scenario that your players aren't expecting to be looking for. Sure you technically wrote it up and it legitimately occurred because the players completely ignored or otherwise missed the hooks you put out to lead them to it, but it's not gonna make them feel any better about it or make it feel less fiaty until you try to explain every single hook they missed.

I think I understand the thread a bit better after reading this post.

The issue isn't really the GM having "secrets", it's rather about the GM running a storyline that doesn't involve the players.

For example, the GM sends the PCs to investigate a murder, and then, 3 sessions later, tells the PCs that the world was destroyed because they failed to find the clue that would've led them to a doomsday cult who was behind the murder and who had plans to destroy the world, which the PCs were supposed to stop.

That's just bad, simply because it makes for a crappy story. So, as a GM, you have to use your judgment.

Talakeal
2011-04-06, 04:24 PM
It was hardly a doomsday scenario, merely a single session where they achieved only partial (not complete) victory because they didn't take into account the numerous clues I had given then. The campaign would have continued next week, if they hadn't blown up and quit the game over it, with them closer to their goal then they were the previous week and, depending on what they did, even closer than if their plan had been a complete success.

But if you want to discuss that campaign, we can do so within the thread dedicated to it.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193297

Axolotl
2011-04-06, 05:20 PM
There's a difference between "DM having secrets" and "PCs die because of an unknown factor the player's had no chance of antcipating". If the bad guyn is with a red dragon which makes the fight significantly more likely for the players to all die then they should have a fair ammount of warning prior to the dragon turning up and eating them all.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 05:24 PM
There's a difference between "DM having secrets" and "PCs die because of an unknown factor the player's had no chance of antcipating". If the bad guyn is with a red dragon which makes the fight significantly more likely for the players to all die then they should have a fair ammount of warning prior to the dragon turning up and eating them all.
IF they did their due diligence as players and had their characters do research/spying/etc. If they neglect to do so, they're fair game. "Sorry, guys, piss poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine."

Talakeal
2011-04-06, 05:25 PM
I did some more thinking about this. Isn't making the player interpret clues and look for more information part of the game? Shouldn't you reward clever and perceptive players?

I agree that clues should be repeated and not too obscure, but why should the DM have to make hooks increasingly more obvious until they eventually are slapping the players in the face with them? If the player's are not putting any thought into the investigation, or just not caring about the clues, and they die as a result, how is that any different than if they go into combat not bothering to use any strategy and die as a result?

Part of a game is putting in effort and coming up with clever plans. Players who do this better are successful, those who are worse at it fail. Why should the investigation step be exempt from this?

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 05:30 PM
That, too, depends. If you've been hitherto running a hack/slash type game, which they fully expect to remain a hack/slash, and then spring upon them an encounter which they would have done better against if they'd seen it coming and prepared for it, it can serve as a wakeup call.

However, slaughtering them wholesale won't tip them off to that.

On the the other hand, if you've been running a more compleat game style which involves actual tactical complexity and the like, there is no reason they should be running into situations without knowing at least a bit about what they might be facing.

BRC
2011-04-06, 05:31 PM
IF they did their due diligence as players and had their characters do research/spying/etc. If they neglect to do so, they're fair game. "Sorry, guys, piss poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine."
Mind you, the amount of planning required should be within reason for the situation, the party makeup, the play style, and previous party actions.

For example, if the Party always exhaustively investigates their targets, scrying, scouting with Wildshaped druids, pumping local thieves for information, ect Then you can feel justified wiping them out because they decided to kick in the door without so much as checking to see if there was one dragon inside or several.

If, however, the party has never so much as rolled a Sense Motive check, you shouldn't expect them to stake out the dragon's cave for three days, watching people go in and out and taking meticulous notes.


Also, depending on how you hide the information, this can be as bad as railroading. If the party dies because the Dragon was meeting with a Wizard, it's your fault if the only way they could have learned this was three sessions ago when you briefly mentioned a "Strange Dwarf" at the bar who would have, if bribed, mentioned that the Wizard and the Dragon are meeting to form an alliance.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 05:33 PM
Honestly, though, in your hypothetical situation Talakeal, I'd have had the Dragon leave the party alone, spinning it out like the Dragon wanting the wizard to prove itself by slaying the entire party without his aid.

If they triumph, the Dragon would make them an offer, which is their cue to run like their pants are on fire.

bloodtide
2011-04-06, 05:35 PM
I did some more thinking about this. Isn't making the player interpret clues and look for more information part of the game? Shouldn't you reward clever and perceptive players?

I agree that clues should be repeated and not too obscure, but why should the DM have to make hooks increasingly more obvious until they eventually are slapping the players in the face with them? If the player's are not putting any thought into the investigation, or just not caring about the clues, and they die as a result, how is that any different than if they go into combat not bothering to use any strategy and die as a result?

Part of a game is putting in effort and coming up with clever plans. Players who do this better are successful, those who are worse at it fail. Why should the investigation step be exempt from this?

Well, the game should be a challenge...but it will depend a lot on the players skill level. Quick and sharp players get clues fast, however the bulk of players do not. And a lot of players do need to be hit over the head with a clue.

You should always reward good players, just keep in mind ability.

Axolotl
2011-04-06, 05:37 PM
IF they did their due diligence as players and had their characters do research/spying/etc. If they neglect to do so, they're fair game. "Sorry, guys, piss poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine."But what counts as "due diligence"? My expectations as a player of whats reasonable may not be the same as the DMs. Most research/spying/etc in games is boring snce it rarely gives useful information since it requires the players to be looking for exactly what surprise the DM has instore with all other inquiries turning up nothing. Now sure if the player's just charge in with no planning then it's fair enough for them to stumble into a tougher battle than if they'd planned. But having a Red Dragon show up on top of what is presumably already a challenging fight with a wizard? That's the type of thing that leads to gameplay where people roll different sized lead weights down every corridor to check for traps.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 05:41 PM
Mind you, the amount of planning required should be within reason for the situation, the party makeup, the play style, and previous party actions.

For example, if the Party always exhaustively investigates their targets, scrying, scouting with Wildshaped druids, pumping local thieves for information, ect Then you can feel justified wiping them out because they decided to kick in the door without so much as checking to see if there was one dragon inside or several.

If, however, the party has never so much as rolled a Sense Motive check, you shouldn't expect them to stake out the dragon's cave for three days, watching people go in and out and taking meticulous notes. No, but I expect them to do something to research their enemies. If they don't, they're obviously not interested in their character's survival. Either that, or they have that sense of entitlement that I loathe.


Also, depending on how you hide the information, this can be as bad as railroading. If the party dies because the Dragon was meeting with a Wizard, it's your fault if the only way they could have learned this was three sessions ago when you briefly mentioned a "Strange Dwarf" at the bar who would have, if bribed, mentioned that the Wizard and the Dragon are meeting to form an alliance.See, this is what's called a "single point of failure." These are bad. VERY. BAD. There should always be multiple means of finding out vital pieces of information. A campaign should never hinge on a single point of failure.
That being said, as a DM, I shouldn't have to throw the information at the players. They need to put forth some effort. No effort = planning based on no (or bad) information (or assumptions). And you know what they say about assumptions. They make an *** out of you and umption.

EDIT: @Axolotl: IMO, "due diligence" means that they at least put forth effort in an attempt to learn what the (wizard in this scenario) BBEG has planned. If they even interrogate one or two minions, one of them would have happened to know that the wizard was planning to negotiate with a dragon on such and such date. Scrying of some sort would also have netted them this important bit of data. There's a million means to get info, and they don't even try? Seriously? (Personally, I prefer a dead kobold on a rope to lead weights, anyway. :smalltongue:)

byaku rai
2011-04-06, 05:57 PM
Just remember that the players shouldn't know much, if any, more about the world than their characters. If they care enough to ask about history or geography or some such, and you've fleshed out that far, then tell them (if their characters are likely to know). Otherwise, no.

Think of it this way: the campaign is a book. The DM is the writer. The characters are the characters (duh). The players are the readers. Unless they cheat by skipping ahead in the story, they shouldn't know what's to come. As for background info, that's the DM's duty to provide, in a manner that facilitates reader understanding without overwhelming or boring them. Plot details, however, should remain secret until needed (although foreshadowing is always good).

Long story short, I think you should give them a surprise round to gtfo if they're intelligent, or if they aren't just dragon them. But then, I tend noticeably towards CE when I DM.

Xefas
2011-04-06, 05:59 PM
>>#38 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10719766&postcount=38)
>>implying everyone enjoys playing a roleplaying game the same way

>>mfw
http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad91/bluejanus/Angel_mug_2.jpg

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 06:01 PM
^

>mfw employing 4chan terminology on a respectable website

>mfw I have no face

Now now, he didn't directly state that all players play the same way.

bloodtide
2011-04-06, 06:05 PM
The basic idea is the DM is always in control.


So say the group party crashes a dragon party(Picture the group busting down a door and seeing a huge extra-dimensional room full of 25 dragons). It's not like all 25 dragons would attack. Anything can happen:

Like;

1.The dragons just ignore the group
2.The dragons just do enough to get rid of them..teleport or such
3.The dragons just scare them
4.The dragons invite the group to the party(maybe for fun, maybe for real, maybe for snacks later).
5.The dragons call for 'Little Tooth', a small and young dragon at the groups level and give him the job of ''clean the people rats away''. Then the dragons sit back and watch the fun....maybe helping each side to make it even more fun.

All of these and more..could happen

Xefas
2011-04-06, 06:05 PM
Now now, he didn't directly state that all players play the same way.
The idea that your only options are:
1) Play the "guess what your DM wants you to say" game.
2) You don't care about your character.
3) You are an entitled shmuck.

is quite presumptuous, regardless.

byaku rai
2011-04-06, 06:07 PM
Apologies if I've offended the rabbit. :smallsigh: What is mfw, btw?

Modifying my previous comparison, some DMs actually write the book while the players are reading it. If that's done to too much of an extent, there's no opportunity for foreshadowing, and it goes back to singular failure points (mentioned above). THAT'S BAD. If the characters walked into this without knowing because you never hinted that there could be a dragon involved, shame on you. If they did because they never did their research or failed to pay attention to MULTIPLE instances of foreshadowing, they deserve to be dragoned IMO.

EDIT: Xefas, please stop making unfounded assumptions. I never said any of that.

Xefas
2011-04-06, 06:09 PM
What is mfw, btw?


"My face when". Also, I wasn't talking about you. I quoted post #38, not 39.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 06:13 PM
The idea that your only options are:
1) Play the "guess what your DM wants you to say" game.
2) You don't care about your character.
3) You are an entitled shmuck.

is quite presumptuous, regardless.
So, the DM should what, tell you the entire plot?

This goes back to the poster directly before me, who I completely agree with, about reading the end of the book first. How exciting can that really be?

Xefas
2011-04-06, 06:18 PM
So, the DM should what, tell you the entire plot?

If a plot has already be predetermined by the DM, then the players have (little or) no agency over that plot.

If you are playing a game where your primary enjoyment is derived from figuring out the optimal decision to make in a given situation (i.e. good tactical decision making"), then this is fine.

If you are playing a game where your primary enjoyment is derived from collaboratively determining a narrative in which everyone has equal agency in the proceedings, then it is bad.

There are people who play D&D in both ways. You should not rashly dismiss either.

faceroll
2011-04-06, 06:26 PM
Like I said in your other thread, the problem lies when you've got effectively a doomsday scenario that your players aren't expecting to be looking for. Sure you technically wrote it up and it legitimately occurred because the players completely ignored or otherwise missed the hooks you put out to lead them to it, but it's not gonna make them feel any better about it or make it feel less fiaty until you try to explain every single hook they missed.

I read that post in the other thread, and it struck me as odd. When I run sandbox games, there are about a dozen or so factions vying for supremacy, and more than half of them are looking to kick off the ultimate showdown for ultimate destiny. 10,000 years of blood and horror is the endgame for at least half the gods in D&D, not to mention elder evils, brain eaters from beyond time, and evil necromancers.

If the players want to be genre-retarded, it's not my fault they lose.


IF they did their due diligence as players and had their characters do research/spying/etc. If they neglect to do so, they're fair game. "Sorry, guys, piss poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine."

Exactly.
I also like including things that are dangerous and totally unknown. The only way a PC can figure out if it's ultimately safe or not is to just do it. Roll the dice. Take a risk. Or not. No one's forcing them to do anything. They could always go farm dirt, make some profession checks. It's up to them.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 06:29 PM
If a plot has already be predetermined by the DM, then the players have (little or) no agency over that plot.

If you are playing a game where your primary enjoyment is derived from figuring out the optimal decision to make in a given situation (i.e. good tactical decision making"), then this is fine.

If you are playing a game where your primary enjoyment is derived from collaboratively determining a narrative in which everyone has equal agency in the proceedings, then it is bad.

There are people who play D&D in both ways. You should not rashly dismiss either.If there's no underlying plot, why have a DM at all? At that point the players can effectively run the game without one.

And I'm sorry, but the world is not static. Things are always moving, things are always happening. If the BBEG has a plan, do you expect him to stop and wait for the PCs to "catch up?" The BBEG is always in a race against the characters, trying to reach certain goals before the characters can effectively stop him/her/it. If he/she/it reaches their goals before the characters can stop him/her/it, then of course the characters are going to be hard pressed to win.

If a character cannot be reasonably expected to know a piece of information, I'm not about to give it to the player for them to metagame their way into knowing. If they put forth effort into finding things out, I'll make sure they find the information they are looking for. No effort = no reward. You don't get paid if you don't work.

Claudius Maximus
2011-04-06, 06:32 PM
I don't know about everyone else but I like to set up my NPCs and background actors to work along a script of sorts. PCs can change it but I like to know what would happen if they don't. I do not consider this railroading, just planning.

If I had the wizard and the dragon set to meet in that place on that day then that's what they're going to do, and the only thing that could stop it is PC intervention. If the PCs end up intervening by busting in on both of them then it's their fault. They should immediately run, and the narrative is now furthered now that they know about the dragon.

BRC
2011-04-06, 06:32 PM
So, the DM should what, tell you the entire plot?

This goes back to the poster directly before me, who I completely agree with, about reading the end of the book first. How exciting can that really be?

Well no, but the DM should tailor their game to the Players. This doesn't mean giving them everything they want, it means giving them the type of challenges they want.

This means that if the Players have expressed no interest in investigating their foes, you shouldn't make it impossible to win without doing so.
You can punish them for not doing so, let them survive by the skin of their teeth, walking away thinking "Man, that would have gone far better had we learned that the Baron employed werewolves as guards". Heck, you could even put them into a position where they could easily die, and then not shed a tear when they do so.


As I said earlier, scale it to what you expect from the party. If you expect them to spend Ten minutes doing their homework, have them barely survive if they do five, survive if they do ten, and win with flying colors if they do fifteen. If you expect them to spend an hour figuring out exactly what they're up against, then they'll die if they only do fifteen minutes.

Xefas
2011-04-06, 06:37 PM
If a character cannot be reasonably expected to know a piece of information, I'm not about to give it to the player for them to metagame their way into knowing. If they put forth effort into finding things out, I'll make sure they find the information they are looking for. No effort = no reward. You don't get paid if you don't work.

I'm glad that you have such a clear definition of what it is that you like.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying that you should respect other people's opinions besides your own. Not everyone plays the same way you do. And they have fun, and the world does not collapse, somehow. Not everyone even perceives concepts in the same way you do, or thinks about the idea of effort and reward cycles in the same way.

Being different from you, personally, and your personal experiences, does not equal invalid. Even if you can't understand their perspective, I hope you can see value in not deriding it.

oswulf
2011-04-06, 06:43 PM
My oversimplified response--

The GM is allowed to do whatever the GM wants.

And if the GM abuses this power, then the GM may quickly find that there are no players left to GM.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 06:46 PM
This means that if the Players have expressed no interest in investigating their foes, you shouldn't make it impossible to win without doing so.
You can punish them for not doing so, let them survive by the skin of their teeth, walking away thinking "Man, that would have gone far better had we learned that the Baron employed werewolves as guards". Heck, you could even put them into a position where they could easily die, and then not shed a tear when they do so. Oh, they may not die without doing their homework, but they most likely won't win, either. Fully 75% of the time, the players in my group will manage to get away (minus a character or two in need of raising) to regroup and do some homework.

Typical reaction:
Rogue's player: "HOLY CRAP!!! I should have checked out that Thieves' Guild Headquarters before I kicked in the door, right, Bob? Bob? BOB?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! *rifles through Bob's pockets* HA! I knew you were lying when you said you didn't have that 5 gold you owed me!" (Sadly, I'm not joking.)



As I said earlier, scale it to what you expect from the party. If you expect them to spend Ten minutes doing their homework, have them barely survive if they do five, survive if they do ten, and win with flying colors if they do fifteen. If you expect them to spend an hour figuring out exactly what they're up against, then they'll die if they only do fifteen minutes.I simply expect effort. Two minutes is usually sufficient.

Typical exchange:
Rogue's player: "I go and scout the Thieves' Guild the night prior to the raid."
DM: "As you prowl about the warehouse, you notice that the guards aren't human. They're quite large, and have elongated, wolf-like muzzles and pointy ears."
Rogue's player: "OH CRAP!!!! I better go tell the guys."

That exchange would probably take two minutes or less.

kyoryu
2011-04-06, 06:59 PM
The GM is absolutely allowed to keep secrets.

However, players should not be penalized for not knowing, or asking about, something that their *characters* would either know about or notice.

If all orcs are green, and there's a red orc mixed in and this is significant, the players should be told this. "You know all orcs are green, but one orc in this group is red. That seems odd." They don't necessarily need to be told what the significance is (yet). But neither should the DM withhold that information and then later on use "well you didn't *ask*" as an excuse.

olthar
2011-04-06, 07:27 PM
But neither should the DM withhold that information and then later on use "well you didn't *ask*" as an excuse.Ugh, I've had that recently with a DM. We set up an elaborate plan to help a player get out of trouble by casting a zone of truth but placing it so he is outside of it. The DM listens to this plan for 10 minutes. We go to enact it and the DM informs us that in casting the glass gem (spells component in his world) shatters and shards of it flow out glowing until they cover the exact area of the spell (clearly showing that the other character was outside of the area of effect) and then disappear. When I complain that I was a 6th level cleric who would have known what the visual effect of the spell would have been (built at 6th level so I don't know officially whether he has used the spell before), his response was "you didn't ask."

The world does not revolve around the PCs. Your NPCs should do stuff and the PCs shouldn't always know about it. In fact, it shouldn't always be possible for your PCs to figure it out.

That being said, if your PCs are heading toward a confrontation with a character who has been in the area, then the PCs should be capable of figuring out what is going on. If you drop a lot of clues and they miss them, then maybe give them a gather info check or a wis role to see if you can give them some information about it. Even just asking someone to roll a die can sometimes cue the PCs in to the idea that they should be doing something there.

Jamin
2011-04-06, 08:27 PM
This is not what I meant at all. I think it is okay to keep secrets. Just don't expect your players to know them. All I was saying is that the DM controls the knowledge of the players.

erikun
2011-04-06, 09:41 PM
As a GM, you are responsible for what your players know. You are also responsible for what appears in the game world. If something appears in the game world that the players do not have a reasonable way to know about, then it because of the planning of the GM.

Note the reasonable part. Finding out about the dragon only if they interrogated the leader of the cult which the party would have found out about if they'd talked to the drunk contact from bribing the town guard is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, having the local townsfolk talk abou the dragon flying to and from the wizard tower is. Having the townsfolk relate about the "pompous rich royality" (the dragon, polymorphed) which recently showed up and wandered off to the tower would be reasonable. Having all the exits blocked up and people teleporting in and out would make the dragon - or any surprise visitors - more reasonable.

The key point is that the PCs have some hint that the dragon is there. They may not recognize it as the threat it is, but the situation is clearly wrong and it becomes the players' job to determine just what oddity is happening (or walk into the figurative dragon's den unprepared).

Note that just having the dragon be there for no reason whatsoever feels like a GM railroad, and is really no different from having an over-CRed monster stop through camp while everyone is asleep and unprepared. Yes, the GM can do it and yes, it is "legal" to do so. But it really isn't fair and gives the sense that the GM is out to kill the players. The players (reasonably) do not expect an Elder Wyrm Red Dragon to be stomping through their house in the middle of the night for no conceivable reason, just as they (reasonably) do not expect an Elder Wyrm Red Dragon to be chatting with the evil wizard at the top of his tower with no clue where it came from or how it got there.

Toofey
2011-04-06, 10:08 PM
If there are no unknowns then why not just roll dice with the build you want vs the stats listed for the monster in the book. I really don't understand this whole DMs are cheating vibe the no rule 0 camp has, it seems pretty silly to me, and I don't understand why people would want to DM for these people.

Claudius Maximus
2011-04-06, 10:25 PM
Note that just having the dragon be there for no reason whatsoever feels like a GM railroad, and is really no different from having an over-CRed monster stop through camp while everyone is asleep and unprepared. Yes, the GM can do it and yes, it is "legal" to do so. But it really isn't fair and gives the sense that the GM is out to kill the players. The players (reasonably) do not expect an Elder Wyrm Red Dragon to be stomping through their house in the middle of the night for no conceivable reason, just as they (reasonably) do not expect an Elder Wyrm Red Dragon to be chatting with the evil wizard at the top of his tower with no clue where it came from or how it got there.

But there was a reason for the dragon - the DM had planned for them to be meeting and conniving at that time. The DM in this situation is not just out to kill the party while twirling his mustache. And it's not railroading to have things happen behind the scenes.

The question is whether the DM should alter his already existing scenario because the players stumbled into it without his expectation and are going to be in trouble. I'm all for winging things and building around the PCs and their expectations, but in this case I think it would be better to just let them get surprised. Surprises happen sometimes.

And maybe that's how they learn about the dragon and wizard's plot - not from random dirt farmers (what kind of secret plot is it that it would leak to them anyway?) but by narrowly escaping with their lives as firsthand witnesses to the conspiracy.

Amphetryon
2011-04-06, 11:00 PM
I'd like to add a 4th option/step to Oracle Hunter's list:

4: Alter the story. If the players all misunderstood your plot about a dragon and an evil wizard as having to do with a mind-flayer, there's probably a reason for that misunderstanding. Nothing is 'wrong' with making their misunderstanding become the New Truth, provided you don't tip your hand to show you're moving stuff to accommodate player expectations for the story..

valadil
2011-04-06, 11:12 PM
I think the title of this thread sets up an unfair context for Jamin's quotation.


If the players don't know something about your world it is your fault never theirs. All

Restated with emphasis. Yes, NPCs can keep secrets. Puzzle answers are secrets too. As are the locations of traps. If they aren't secrets, you get a boring and ridiculous game.

How the world works should not be kept secret (well, unless discovering the world is part of the plot.) If I'm playing a Dune game, my character better know that sandworms exist in the desert. Nobody in that world would choose to have a sandy desert picnic. They know better. PCs who don't know better are failed by bad GMing.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-06, 11:22 PM
By any chance, could you post or atleast PM, me the link to the thread?
I'd like to see this...

But from what I've read it here, I've seen nothing wrong...
You created a real-world that doesn't revolve around their PCs, and they weren't smart enough to go more in-depth with their planning to acknowledge that.
Simple spying/scyring would have alerted them to what was up...


If the players don't know something about your world it is your fault never theirs.
This seems like a rather bone-headed thing to say...
Especially that 'never', which casually eliminates PC responsibility to take the time to learn and ask questions about the world they're playing in and for the actual characters to act logically and realistically.
Honestly, what did he expect you to say while they were roleplaying plans?

DM: Oh! Guys! You should know that the wizard you're characters are gonna attack will be meeting up with a red dragon at the scheduled time. So, like, uh, even though your characters have no way of knowing this and haven't actually DONE anything to learn about it... Yeah, just plan accordingly. Good luck!

Talakeal
2011-04-06, 11:22 PM
@ valadril:

I quoted his entire post, and we were talking about a specific plot within the campaign world, not about universal knowledge. He even made mention of the red dragon example in the quote, so if the quote is out of context, it is only because he made an out of context statement about general world knowledge in a thread discussing what happens when PCs are missing specific knowledge of NPC plans.

holywhippet
2011-04-06, 11:50 PM
I'd say the DM needs to be reasonable with regards to what clues they provide. If the wizard is meeting with a dragon, you'd expect that there might be rumours about a dragon being in the area from it being seen flying overhead. Assuming it didn't teleport or fly invisibly. If the party is moving/sneaking through the wizard's home base you'd expect some indicators that a dragon is nearby - maybe the kitchen is preparing a really large whole cow for dinner. Maybe the servants/minions are overheard talking about a dragon.

Knaight
2011-04-06, 11:56 PM
Yes.

In order for the game to be fun, the DM should keep everything secret. That way, the players can only play the game as their characters.

There are two main thoughts here:

1.It's a Game like any Other

2.Role-playing is Different

The quote has been heavily trimmed.

Concerning keeping everything secret, I disagree entirely. Not only should the players be told stuff their characters would know (specifics of a culture, what fictional elements are, etc), but they should also know whatever it takes to run a game smoothly. In some cases that might not even need character knowledge gradually filled in, such as a dungeon crawl. In others, it needs a known structure from the beginning.

As an example, the current game I'm working on -which already has buy in, I have a group that is just waiting for our schedules to be beat into submission to play- needs a lot of information at the beginning. It starts with the characters in prison, waiting for an execution that absolutely will happen. Moreover the entire story is told via flashbacks, which means that the characters clearly didn't die, though devastating failures are still a real possibility. This isn't a typical example by any stretch of the imagination, usually I GM in chronological order and only world details are necessary in explanation. Still, that it exists proves that there is a spectrum, even if it doesn't mean any more than one group uses more than one portion -that is merely highly likely.

Rixx
2011-04-07, 12:08 AM
"Is the GM allowed to-"

I'm gonna have to stop you right there.

holywhippet
2011-04-07, 12:20 AM
"Is the GM allowed to-"

I'm gonna have to stop you right there.

Well, there is a difference between is the GM allowed to and what the GM will be allowed to do before he loses all his players. Someone I know told me about one Shadowrun campaign where they were planning to break into a building. They initially decided to "wing it" but the GM refused and insisted they plan it out. They came up with a plan and he decided it wasn't detailed enough. In the end they wasted about 2 sessions planning their break in. Then they actually entered the building and were told they'd been fed false information - the building was nothing like what they thought it would be and their plan was useless.

Knaight
2011-04-07, 12:23 AM
If there's no underlying plot, why have a DM at all? At that point the players can effectively run the game without one.

And I'm sorry, but the world is not static. Things are always moving, things are always happening. If the BBEG has a plan, do you expect him to stop and wait for the PCs to "catch up?" The BBEG is always in a race against the characters, trying to reach certain goals before the characters can effectively stop him/her/it. If he/she/it reaches their goals before the characters can stop him/her/it, then of course the characters are going to be hard pressed to win.

If a character cannot be reasonably expected to know a piece of information, I'm not about to give it to the player for them to metagame their way into knowing. If they put forth effort into finding things out, I'll make sure they find the information they are looking for. No effort = no reward. You don't get paid if you don't work.
An underlying plot is one way a GM can operate. Others include deriving an emergent plot from the group as a whole with the GM taking care of non-protagonist characters and the setting, providing plot elements within a specific framework, providing a broad framework in which the players create the plot, and a whole bunch of others that I personally can't recall currently. You prefer the first of these, I prefer the second and use the fourth for variety, and none of these are wrong or work without the GM role.

A BBEG is not a mandatory element. Conflict is essentially mandatory, as the game won't generate a narrative without it, but there are options beyond the countering of a specific plot by a specific character. Just off the top of my head the characters could all be going for a specific goal, with tension coming from those opposing them (thus the active and reactive are switched), the characters attempting to achieve a specific goal before another entity or other entities (note that this is not mutually exclusive), characters attempting to maintain a particular state of affairs against the general tide of the setting in motion, or a bunch of other things. Moreover the goal may well be completely unimportant relative to what happens.

As for characters knowing information, as I stated previously I don't really worry about meta gaming. Besides, what constitutes sufficient effort to obtain information is highly dependent upon the specifics of the style of game and setting. If one is playing out stuff in the style of Arthurian romances, then detailed research has no business being in the game, and demanding peoples names and chancing upon information is to be expected. If one is playing a game amidst deadlier, grittier, less heroic trappings concerning attempting something in direct opposition to a dangerous entity, then detailed investigation makes sense.

The short version is that there are a bunch of options, and what works is dependent upon the people, and may encompass anything from one very narrow method to a wide variety of mixes. Its when what this is varies among the people in one game, and what was picked isn't acceptable to everyone -likely due to a misunderstanding- that problems show up.

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 12:26 AM
Well, there is a difference between is the GM allowed to and what the GM will be allowed to do before he loses all his players. Someone I know told me about one Shadowrun campaign where they were planning to break into a building. They initially decided to "wing it" but the GM refused and insisted they plan it out. They came up with a plan and he decided it wasn't detailed enough. In the end they wasted about 2 sessions planning their break in. Then they actually entered the building and were told they'd been fed false information - the building was nothing like what they thought it would be and their plan was useless.

Yeah, I had a DM who insisted we spend several sessions planning an attack rather than just letting us go about it. I think he was stalling for time because he knew we would need a longer than normal session to run the battle.
We lost horribly by the way. They had invisible reinforcements we didn't bother checking for (Our fault, not the DM's) and the DM decided to nerf my sticks to snakes spell after I cast it (he said the speed given for snakes in the MM was unrealistic and halved it on the spot) so our reinforcements never arrived. Was still fun though, and though it happened almost 15 years ago I still try and think of better tactics (It was my first major loss, but even then I blamed myself rather than resorting to the "killer DM" reaction to a TPK.

Toofey
2011-04-07, 12:29 AM
Well, there is a difference between is the GM allowed to and what the GM will be allowed to do before he loses all his players. Someone I know told me about one Shadowrun campaign where they were planning to break into a building. They initially decided to "wing it" but the GM refused and insisted they plan it out. They came up with a plan and he decided it wasn't detailed enough. In the end they wasted about 2 sessions planning their break in. Then they actually entered the building and were told they'd been fed false information - the building was nothing like what they thought it would be and their plan was useless.

And the stock reply "it's not about what you can do, it's about what you can do before people leave" Ya know what, why don't you let us worry about our players?

If your DM cheats to much for you feel free to leave. I've had a player leave my most recent group because I was "cheating" (he wanted to get specialization bonuses, in 2nd ed with a mage/thief, but I was cheating.) He's now in a group with a very by the book DM that another of my players just dropped out of, because they only had time for 1 group, and that DM sucked. But hey, he follows the rules...

I'm pretty sure my group is better off for the person who thought I was a cheater leaving.

BTW, after all the people I've seen proxy threaten to drop out of groups because of cheating DMs, or say that cheating DMs are ok until people want to leave, in honor of all that, the next player who threatens to leave a group I'm DMing gets kicked out. (that said it's only happened once so by the time it happens again if it does I'll probably forget this)

Claudius Maximus
2011-04-07, 12:37 AM
Man why is everyone taking everything so personally?

They're trying to define GM authority, not tell you how to run your game.

Toofey
2011-04-07, 12:42 AM
don't you get that defining gm authority is trying to tell us how to run our games?

Also if it's defined then the dm doesn't have anything to do when there's a problem out of his "defined" authority. there needs to be a final say in order for RPGs to function.

edit: Also frankly I know that at least in my case these discussion really do seem to be rehashes of what we hear when players are arguing rules with us, (right down to the "if you don't follow the rules I'll leave") and it's never good for the game to be arguing rules with the DM, especially if you think/know they're cheating.

edit2: I also do have a semi-compulsion to argue with people on the internet who are wrong. maybe even worth a couple points in gurps.

edit3: and arguing over what just happened grinding play to a halt is pretty much the worst part about being a DM. We have enough going on, and it's hard enough to have a good time as the DM, even when things are going well. To then have someone knock over the board because; they want X bonus, or think they should have already killed the enemy, or because a feat/prof/ability/attack etc... they like isn't allowed or working how [they read] the book says it should, is just the height of misery.

Realms of Chaos
2011-04-07, 12:59 AM
To play the devil's advocate for a moment, if the PCs fail to discover important hints that you've set up on the grounds that none of them has the (likely divination) magic or optimized skills to find them and they die due to a TPK, there might be a bit of a problem there. Likewise, any solution requiring Omen of Peril/Augury/Divination to figure out something ahead of time is kind of flawed as there is at least a 10% chance of failure even if the PCs make all of the "correct" decisions.

While it's fair to say that the campaign doesn't revolve around the PCs, punishing the PCs for having the wrong characters for a campaign is a bit cruel unless you give them some warning of this and they accept the risks.

Claudius Maximus
2011-04-07, 01:01 AM
don't you get that defining gm authority is trying to tell us how to run our games?

Not really? They're basically saying that the DM's authority extends as far as it does. It's almost a truism. If the players walk you're not playing and are no longer a DM, so you're only as powerful as they let you be.

The GM/Player dynamic is a big old compromise. While my earlier posts might look like I support a really authoritative and uncompromising view of DMing, of course I adapt my campaign to the PCs and the players' desires. I'm DMing to indulge them in the first place, after all.

Anyway I think we all need to make the basic assumption that nobody is advocating being terrible. If you disagree with someone's post, at least realize it's a statement of personal playstyle instead of some polemic against all dissenters.

Xefas
2011-04-07, 01:12 AM
there needs to be a final say in order for RPGs to function.


Woah woah woah. That's a pretty big generalization. I'm curious as to how many RPGs you've played outside of D&D and various similar spin-offs.

Shock: Social Science Fiction is an RPG that is completely GMless. Mouse Guard, Free Market, and Dogs in the Vineyard have relatively strong guidelines as to what GMs are allowed to do. Apocalypse World, Poison'd, In a Wicked Age, Kobolds Ate My Baby, and Primetime Adventures all have outright rules defining what a GM is allowed to do.

All of those are great RPGs that work perfectly fine without the GM having an authoritative final say in everything.

Toofey
2011-04-07, 01:16 AM
Well yes you should try and make the game good, and you should listen to the players about what they want to have happen in the story because that's just good DMing, and I don't actually totally disregard my players because that's not good play.

But, As DM I reserve the right to change whatever rule, item description, bit of wording in a spell, or the situation as I see fit, precisely to make sure the game stays good. I have only ever had complaints about this a very few time and 1 player left. In most of the other occasions the complaints about the outcome of a single event, (most often the result of the player not knowing about things that were going on, which is essential to creating a good story, and in some cases to creating a good combat)

I once had a 40 minute argument with a rules lawyer. The player would have been a lot happier if instead of arguing they had asked for a disbelieve illusion attempt.

Rule 0 is so the DM/GM whatever can trump the book is necessary, and can act as the final word about what happens. If there's no rule 0, then why not argue a situation where you think the book is more on your side?

Arguing over rules is no fun, so the DM gets to make the rules. They also make up the story and do most of the work so it's a small thing to grant them.

Toofey
2011-04-07, 01:21 AM
Woah woah woah. That's a pretty big generalization. I'm curious as to how many RPGs you've played outside of D&D and various similar spin-offs.

Shock: Social Science Fiction is an RPG that is completely GMless. Mouse Guard, Free Market, and Dogs in the Vineyard have relatively strong guidelines as to what GMs are allowed to do. Apocalypse World, Poison'd, In a Wicked Age, Kobolds Ate My Baby, and Primetime Adventures all have outright rules defining what a GM is allowed to do.

All of those are great RPGs that work perfectly fine without the GM having an authoritative final say in everything.
If there are clear enough resolutions for events that an individual's judgement is unnecessary then that system of resolution is "a final say". You'll notice I specifically said "a final say" the necessary part is the finality not the source of the finality. That said in those systems I would guess that a GM isn't as responsible for... well everything, as they are in systems where they do actually serve as the source of finality with regards to events.


edit: I'll also say that I suspect that systems that have more air tight event resolution systems generally have less flexibility in what you can actually (try to) do.

Xefas
2011-04-07, 01:24 AM
If there are clear enough resolutions for events that an individual's judgement is unnecessary then that system of resolution is "a final say". You'll notice I specifically said "a final say" the necessary part is the finality not the source of the finality. That said in those systems I would guess that a GM isn't as responsible for... well everything, as they are in systems where they do actually serve as the source of finality with regards to events.

Um, yes, actually, that's true. Huh. I'm not used to people on the internet knowing what I'm talking about, and making a knowledgeable, rationale response to it.

._. my brain...

I give Toofey my tentative respect. :smallconfused:

EDIT: Arrrgh, his edit makes him sound even more intelligent. When has the internet ever worked like this?

Toofey
2011-04-07, 01:31 AM
Get used to it, I'm here to stay.

I really think part of why this is a big argument on this board is that my odius personal habit to argue online is not unique to me, and this topic brings up a lot of bad memories for people on both sides. Every DM on here is arguing with the player who threatened to leave or did leave, and every player on here is arguing with the DM who screwed them over that time...

Edit: but that's far to reasonable, it's because all players want to abuse the flaws of the gaming systems to make unfair characters that drag down the game then howl like streetcats when we smash their petty gods.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-07, 01:32 AM
EDIT: Arrrgh, his edit makes him sound even more intelligent. When has the internet ever worked like this?

It's called being pleasantly surprised. Does it burn? :smallamused:

Knaight
2011-04-07, 01:32 AM
Well yes you should try and make the game good, and you should listen to the players about what they want to have happen in the story because that's just good DMing, and I don't actually totally disregard my players because that's not good play.

But, As DM I reserve the right to change whatever rule, item description, bit of wording in a spell, or the situation as I see fit, precisely to make sure the game stays good. I have only ever had complaints about this a very few time and 1 player left. In most of the other occasions the complaints about the outcome of a single event, (most often the result of the player not knowing about things that were going on, which is essential to creating a good story, and in some cases to creating a good combat)

I once had a 40 minute argument with a rules lawyer. The player would have been a lot happier if instead of arguing they had asked for a disbelieve illusion attempt.

Rule 0 is so the DM/GM whatever can trump the book is necessary, and can act as the final word about what happens. If there's no rule 0, then why not argue a situation where you think the book is more on your side?

Arguing over rules is no fun, so the DM gets to make the rules. They also make up the story and do most of the work so it's a small thing to grant them.

Again, much of this isn't universal. That the people playing the game need to get along and should enjoy it is, but as for the rest.

You outline a method of dealing with rules, but it is just one method. A game needs rules, whether these are the largely informal rules that show up in free form role playing or the more codified ones elsewhere, and a procedure concerning them is probably a good thing to have. This might be using everything as it is presented in a book, this might be a system of group agreed rules tweaks, it may need to all be up front and it may be revealed gradually. I personally create rules within a system or use a system I made to create a framework for rulings, with GM decision as final arbitrator, but taking player preference into account, and players are welcome to criticize any and all rules. The main reason I do this is that everyone wants rules tailored to settings, and we've found that group generation of a setting never works for us. Still, that is only one point of data, in this case serving only to outline that multiple methods work.

An argument you had once is irrelevant.

Rule 0 is far from universal. Plenty of professional games are made without it, and I can verify functional home brews that lack it. Even my groups system never includes it, if a new rule must be made or a rule isn't working (this is very rare) then the group pounds something out. One person probably creates the rule, but it operates because the group finds it acceptable. This also means that saying the GM gets to make up the rules is far from universally accurate.

On a tangential point, whether or not the GM makes up the story is up for debate. As is whether they do most of the work, some people can improvise stuff extremely well, and some systems lend themselves to improvisation well, meaning that a GM might not do any prep work. For those who do prep sometimes, despite being able to improvise, it may or may not still count as work -again, I can draw upon personal experience to say that my numerous writings on large rules systems, settings, entire systems, etc. aren't really work as they have never been anything I had to do for a game to function. I don't know how that would work if I couldn't just wing everything.


I really think part of why this is a big argument on this board is that my odius personal habit to argue online is not unique to me, and this topic brings up a lot of bad memories for people on both sides. Every DM on here is arguing with the player who threatened to leave or did leave, and every player on here is arguing with the DM who screwed them over that time...

Edit: but that's far to reasonable, it's because all players want to abuse the flaws of the gaming systems to make unfair characters that drag down the game then howl like streetcats when we smash their petty gods.
Assuming an online debate stays civilized, as this one has for the most part its hardly a bad thing to participate in. Everyone is given something to think about, they think about it, and they gain a bit of enlightenment, what's not to like?

As for personal involvement, plenty of people both GM and play, and its only the most heated of arguments that look to be emerging from animosity left over from being a GM with a sucky player or a player with a sucky GM. Sometimes these are minor events, with someone proving to not operate well within the group simply not being invited back, and life goes on with mild irritation at worst, and for those of us who have only the minor events connection the conversation won't heat easily.

As for your edit, I'm assuming sarcasm. Otherwise, get some better players.

Toofey
2011-04-07, 01:36 AM
TLNR read last 4 posts


edit: yeah the edit was a sarcastic comment to go back to the GMs RULE Players Drool argument we were in earlier because arguing is fun.

Xefas
2011-04-07, 01:50 AM
It's called being pleasantly surprised. Does it burn? :smallamused:

Yes. Yes it does. What do I do? This has never happened before.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-07, 01:57 AM
Yes. Yes it does. What do I do? This has never happened before.

There are creams for it, but the best solution is heavy acclimatization. Go, go, and be surprised, pleasantly,multiple times, and you will be healed.

_Zoot_
2011-04-07, 02:35 AM
I don't know about everyone else but I like to set up my NPCs and background actors to work along a script of sorts. PCs can change it but I like to know what would happen if they don't. I do not consider this railroading, just planning.

If I had the wizard and the dragon set to meet in that place on that day then that's what they're going to do, and the only thing that could stop it is PC intervention. If the PCs end up intervening by busting in on both of them then it's their fault. They should immediately run, and the narrative is now furthered now that they know about the dragon.

This is exactly how I like to run a game! You know what will happen if the PC's don't do anything, then, if they change something (by killing someone for example) then you can figure out how that would change things!

It's nice to find someone else that uses the same style as me! :smallbiggrin:

Lord Vukodlak
2011-04-07, 02:41 AM
Ugh, I've had that recently with a DM. We set up an elaborate plan to help a player get out of trouble by casting a zone of truth but placing it so he is outside of it. The DM listens to this plan for 10 minutes. We go to enact it and the DM informs us that in casting the glass gem (spells component in his world) shatters and shards of it flow out glowing until they cover the exact area of the spell (clearly showing that the other character was outside of the area of effect) and then disappear. When I complain that I was a 6th level cleric who would have known what the visual effect of the spell would have been (built at 6th level so I don't know officially whether he has used the spell before), his response was "you didn't ask."

All I can say is ouch!

Jerthanis
2011-04-07, 03:38 AM
Sure, a GM is allowed to keep secrets... but why would he ever want to?

Isn't the act of unveiling plot and progressive storytelling essentially "revealing secrets"?

So, if you have secrets and the players aren't aware of them yet, shouldn't you be working your rear-end off trying to think of ways to organically let the players discover them?

Isn't "failing to keep secrets" most of what you're responsible for doing as a GM?

Jamin
2011-04-07, 07:48 AM
By any chance, could you post or atleast PM, me the link to the thread?
I'd like to see this...

But from what I've read it here, I've seen nothing wrong...
You created a real-world that doesn't revolve around their PCs, and they weren't smart enough to go more in-depth with their planning to acknowledge that.
Simple spying/scyring would have alerted them to what was up...


This seems like a rather bone-headed thing to say...
Especially that 'never', which casually eliminates PC responsibility to take the time to learn and ask questions about the world they're playing in and for the actual characters to act logically and realistically.
Honestly, what did he expect you to say while they were roleplaying plans?

DM: Oh! Guys! You should know that the wizard you're characters are gonna attack will be meeting up with a red dragon at the scheduled time. So, like, uh, even though your characters have no way of knowing this and haven't actually DONE anything to learn about it... Yeah, just plan accordingly. Good luck!
If a player does not write something down or other wise make a note a of something important than it there fault for not knowing about it or if they never even tried to gather information than you are well within your right to have the dragon be there(I still wouldn't but I am not saying I am perfect). All I am saying is that as the DM 100% of all plot related things must come from your month(or keyboard) to the ears(or eyes) of the players. Thus IMO if the DM uses knowledge that the players could not have know reasonably to somehow screw over their choices that is bad DMing. I feel as though I have been badly misrepresented in this thread. I keep secrets from my players all the time. In the campaign I am running right now they still have no idea who the BBEG is (or so I hope anyway). I just think that using secrets to railroad players is bad.

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-07, 08:04 AM
I feel as though I have been badly misrepresented in this thread.
Fair enough, that's why I asked if I could see the thread myself, since this one appeared a little one-sided. Also, the campaign sounds interesting, so I thought I'd give it a read.


All I am saying is that as the DM 100% of all plot related things must come from your month(or keyboard) to the ears(or eyes) of the players.
No. Simply enough to keep the game fun, alive, and moving. And even IF, you the player were made aware of 100% of the plot, that doesn't mean the player characters, without metagaming, can.
Realistically, the player characters, in fact, characters, cannot always get a chance to learn about every plot detail. It's far too convenient. It might be easy...
But easy is, well, easy!



Thus IMO if the DM uses knowledge that the players could not have know reasonably to somehow screw over their choices that is bad DMing.
But your DM wasn't using 'knowledge' to screw you over! Your characters were simply in for a rather nasty surprise!


I just think that using secrets to railroad players is bad.
I don't think this situation is railroading at all. Did your characters thoroughly investigate the situation at hand with the BBEG? If this campaign is a sandbox of plot-and-intrigue, doing some actual plot-and-intrigue, rather than simply planning a takedown probably would have given your characters a headsup.
And still, when your characters kicked down the door, and walked in to see the wizard talking to a red dragon, you could have done a number of things.

Awkwardly close the door waiting for them to finish.
Awkwardly close the door and leave.
Awkwardly wait patiently for them to finish.
Engage in battle anyways.
Flee.
Engage in battle with the dragon/wizard/both.
And any number of options.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-07, 08:21 AM
In a different thread of mine we were discussing a hypothetical situation where the player's performed their attack on the enemy in a manner that would make it much more difficult than the DM intended. In the example it was attacking an evil wizard while he is in the process of negotiating an alliance with a red dragon, and thus having to fight them both at once.

I asked whether or not the DM should simply hand wave the dragon away because the fight is now "over CRed", or should continue with the game as written. Personally I think it is cheating on the part of the DM, even though in this case it is cheating in the player's favor, and would be just as bad as having a red dragon appear out of nowhere if the player's got the drop on the evil wizard and would otherwise make short work of him.

I would have them respond appropriately as per their alignment and world outlook to the players trap. There's always the possibility of the wizard or dragon assuming the other one set them up. There's a few ways it could go, and I'd pick the one that would make the most sense based on the characters involved.

The dragon would absolutely not be hand-waved away. I do not guarantee my players equal CR fights, and they generally play smart enough to try to get adversaries alone when reasonably possible.


This post, frankly, blew my mind, and I felt it was worthy of starting its own topic rather than muddying up my existing thread. In all my years of DMing I have never heard that it was unfair of a DM to have secrets which negatively affect the players.

Why, players are guaranteed to know everything about the world, the plot, etc? That's ridiculous. Nah, they know what they've found out, and whatever knowledge skills give them, etc.

Now, you certainly should feed the players lots of clues to discover what's going on, and give them plenty of opportunities to collect sufficient info to make good decisions, but if they ignore these or make bad decisions anyway...such is life. Some fights you have to run away from or avoid.

Jamin
2011-04-07, 09:00 AM
I am giving up people are still putting words into my month. I have no idea how any of you got what you got from what I said but whatever.
THE END

obliged_salmon
2011-04-07, 10:21 AM
So, everything Knaight and Xefas said.

Concerning the way I play/GM. I ran an Ice and Fire game set during the Baratheon Rebellion, in King's Landing (for non-savvy, a past event where the rebels came and overthrew the king's rule). PC's supported the current regime. They knew in advance that the rebellion was supposed to succeed, and that if they did not intervene, it certainly would. They knew everything in advance, and fighting to change things according to the characters' beliefs was still really interesting.

Another recent game, as player, I'm a guard captain trying to clean up a dirty city. I (player) know that the hostage I'm trying to rescue doesn't want to be rescued. I still send my character in anyway and lots of crazy stuff happened! Not expected stuff! Not because the GM was keeping secrets, but because we both let the dice surprise us.

I guess my point is, the PC's are not the center of the world, but the players ARE the center of the GAME. If the GM lays his cards out (in a game where such is not inappropriate, such as CoC), then everyone gets to participate. Nobody has to EARN anything.

Edit: actually, that came out wrong. Players should earn their victories. What I mean is, players shouldn't have to do work unrelated to what they're interested in. They shouldn't have to be detectives if they aren't playing a detective game. If the GM decides what the PC's victories should be and look like, and how they have to achieve those victories, then it's less fun in my opinion.

Claudius Maximus
2011-04-07, 10:21 AM
Could you help us out? What exactly are you arguing?

Could you restate yourself as clearly as possible?

Britter
2011-04-07, 10:40 AM
Another recent game, as player, I'm a guard captain trying to clean up a dirty city. I (player) know that the hostage I'm trying to rescue doesn't want to be rescued. I still send my character in anyway and lots of crazy stuff happened! Not expected stuff! Not because the GM was keeping secrets, but because we both let the dice surprise us.




Edit: actually, that came out wrong. Players should earn their victories. What I mean is, players shouldn't have to do work unrelated to what they're interested in. They shouldn't have to be detectives if they aren't playing a detective game. If the GM decides what the PC's victories should be and look like, and how they have to achieve those victories, then it's less fun in my opinion.

I'm the GM in question, and I also played in the Baratheon rebellion game.

In both cases, the GM laid out a situation and a conflict. That information was completely availible to the players. In both cases, the GM had no particular idea of what or how the conflict should be resolved. The players actions and how they impacted the conflicts were, for the most part, pretty much unexpected. In both cases they changed the situation and the conflict was resolved in a manner that the GM had not anticipated. The GM, being uninvolved in what the outcome was, was free to play the NPCs to the hilt and have them chase their goals hard. The interaction between the GM and his NPCs, and the players and their PCs, lead to the results without any particular plotted outcome expected or anticipated.

I should add that I am in the "tell everything" camp. I don't tell the players how things will end, because I don't know that yet and I am not committed to a particular ending, but I go out of my way to set up the situation, the conflict, the participants in that conflict, and the goals of the antagonists, and I make sure the players have access to that information.

Jay R
2011-04-07, 10:48 AM
We are asking three different questions and treating them as the same one. To try to udo the confusion, I'm sending three posts, one for each question.

First, let me answer the question in the thread title. This is a red herring, because it's not what people want to discuss, but it needs to be dealt with to get past it.

Yes, OF COURSE the DM is allowed to keep secrets. If not, there would be no Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, Detect Evil, Detect Good, Detect Invisible, ESP, Identify, or countless other spells whose purpose is to find out what the PCs don't know yet.

Until they open the door, you keep secret what's behind it. Until they meet the NPC, they won't learn what he wants. Being a DM is a long sequence of revealing things that were secret up to that moment.

So the real question is what kind of secrets should be kept, and when should they be revealed.

Jay R
2011-04-07, 10:49 AM
We are asking three different questions and treating them as the same one. To try to undo the confusion, I'm sending three posts, one for each question.

Finally, let's deal with the DM-oriented question. What kind of secrets should be kept, and when should they be revealed?

Is the meeting between the evil wizard and the dragon well planned for story purposes? Was this poor PC battle-prep or just reckless DM planning? I can't know without knowing far more about the scenario than I would ever read even if you wrote it. But that's a legitimate question, requiring a judgment call that can't be made without knowing far more about the entire situation than we or the players will ever know.

There are situations in which this was a reasonable setup, and the PCs blew their preparations. There are situations in which this could be a reasonable setup with inferior follow-through. Perhaps the DM should make it clear that they stumbled into a bad problem and need to flee. There are situations in which this was bad story-telling, setting up a random chance at making all PC choices meaningless. I can't tell.

But if the players think the DM is unfair, the game may end. This is also sometimes good and sometimes bad. If my players want a spoon-fed CR-defined adventure regardless of their choices, the game will, and should, end. I'm the wrong DM for them; they're the wrong players for me.

This is why a DM must be continually judging his or her own decisions, listening to the players in good faith but not giving them the final say.

Jay R
2011-04-07, 10:54 AM
We are asking three different questions and treating them as the same one. To try to undo the confusion, I'm sending three posts, one for each question.

Now the PC-oriented question: Should the PCs be affected by a stupid plan, if they didn't know it was a stupid plan?

Yes, of course. If they attacked the illusory force instead of the wizard casting it, you'd let them feel the pain, wouldn't you?

As soon as they saw the red dragon, the battle leader should call out "Plan X!", or whatever they call their plan for retreat, and each PC does what that plan calls for -- Invisibility, Flight, Teleport, Illuison, whatever, and they escape using their standard plan for retreat.

They don't have a Plan X, and don't have contingency plans? Their problem isn't the red dragon. It's that they believe CR is PC armor, rather than a tool for DM planning.

LibraryOgre
2011-04-07, 11:03 AM
If, however, the party has never so much as rolled a Sense Motive check, you shouldn't expect them to stake out the dragon's cave for three days, watching people go in and out and taking meticulous notes.

"There is a technical term for the wives of stupid adventurers."
"What is it?"
"Widows."

TheOasysMaster
2011-04-07, 12:29 PM
"There is a technical term for the wives of stupid adventurers."
"What is it?"
"Widows."
Dude, I was drinking a Coke!
Now, it's all over my screen!
:smallsmile:

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 01:28 PM
@ Theoasysmaster: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193297 If you haven't found it already.

I am not sure how I am "putting words in Janim's mouth" or misrepresenting him. I quoted his entire post (in which ironically, he claims I did things for reasons I explicitly stated I didn't do) and did not editing save to spell-check is and bold the main sentence I objected to.

Then I asked several questions based on how I interpreted what he said in the context of the post he was replying to, which he says it not the context he meant the statement in.

Jamin
2011-04-07, 02:12 PM
You have taken what I said which is that that the DM is in charge of of the players know 100%. You than said that by that statement I meant that the DM must never have secrets. I only said that as a player I dislike DMs who use secret knowledge to undermine my choices which is what I think you players in your thought you were doing. Your intention is unimportant to me. I was trying to show you what your players might have thought and why they were mad at you. That is what you asked is it not?

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 02:17 PM
You have taken what I said which is that that the DM is in charge of of the players know 100%. You than said that by that statement I meant that the DM must never have secrets. I only said that as a player I dislike DMs who use secret knowledge to undermine my choices which is what I think you players in your thought you were doing. Your intention is unimportant to me. I was trying to show you what your players might have thought and why they were mad at you. That is what you asked is it not?

Yes, you did, adequately, thank you.

However you also said that if the player's don't know what is going on it is NEVER their fault and 100% the DMs, and that if something the players are unaware of foils their plans it is bad DMing and railroading of the worst sort.

If you didn't actually mean those statements, then I apologize, however I took them at face value. Those were very extreme positions that I had never heard before, and as I said such a radical and strongly worded opinion kind of blew my mind and I wanted to discuss it, but felt that responding in the same thread about something only tangentially related would only clutter and invite flames into my existing thread and drive it off topic.

I did not create this thread to flame or to ridicule you and I am sorry if it offends you , I merely to see how many people agreed with your statements. If you feel I am misrepresenting you please, present your side of the argument.

Thorcrest
2011-04-07, 02:30 PM
Well, as to the situation which came this thread came from, you can see my answer in the original thread, but in short, you, the DM, were not at fault for their inability to discover everything and not anticipate unexpected elements.

As to answer this thread: YES THE GM CAN HAVE SECRETS! If there were NO secrets then the game wouldn`t have much point... let me show you:

DM: So, the BBEG is a (Level Class Race) and he plans to do X, let's play the game now.
Players: Hmmm If he's a (Level Class Race) then I'll be (Level Class Race) and Have (Items) to counter him... where will the fight be?
DM: (Location)
Player: Well, I will need (Whatever) and (Whatever) will kill all his advantages... oh and you said he was doing X, how?
DM: (Explains plan)
Player: Hmmm, ok I'll do Y, will that work?
DM: Nope...
Player: What if I also did Z?
DM: Yeah, that'll work...
Player: Cool! We are totally gonna win this game! Let's Start!

Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous, but that is what happens with NO secrets. Clearly I believe certain plot elements should be kept secret to either be discovered, or to surprise the players if they fail to discover it. I'm also an advocate for: You just leave? Ok, well things go perfectly for him, this may bite you in the ass later, but ok...

Britter
2011-04-07, 02:37 PM
Well, as to the situation which came this thread came from, you can see my answer in the original thread, but in short, you, the DM, were not at fault for their inability to discover everything and not anticipate unexpected elements.

As to answer this thread: YES THE GM CAN HAVE SECRETS! If there were NO secrets then the game wouldn`t have much point... let me show you:

DM: So, the BBEG is a (Level Class Race) and he plans to do X, let's play the game now.
Players: Hmmm If he's a (Level Class Race) then I'll be (Level Class Race) and Have (Items) to counter him... where will the fight be?
DM: (Location)
Player: Well, I will need (Whatever) and (Whatever) will kill all his advantages... oh and you said he was doing X, how?
DM: (Explains plan)
Player: Hmmm, ok I'll do Y, will that work?
DM: Nope...
Player: What if I also did Z?
DM: Yeah, that'll work...
Player: Cool! We are totally gonna win this game! Let's Start!

Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous, but that is what happens with NO secrets. Clearly I believe certain plot elements should be kept secret to either be discovered, or to surprise the players if they fail to discover it. I'm also an advocate for: You just leave? Ok, well things go perfectly for him, this may bite you in the ass later, but ok...

Thorcrest, as a proponent of the "Tell the players everything" school of thought, I wouldn't allow the players to just do any of that. At each step of your plan they would have to be doing some dice rolling. Even if they know who the bad guy is, and they know what he is going to do, when they actually try to do something, the dice will determine success or fauilure. Since they will inevitably succede or fail when they did not expect too, the story will be changed through play, even if they knew what the situation was going in to the game.

Now, mind you, the systems I play are very unlike DnD, in that there is no for-sure counters to anything, and that even in character generation you have to make some tough choices and may not get everything you want.

Regardless, any time the players want to affect the game world, the dice have to hit the table and determine success or failure. You can't just narrate your way to victory based on the information you have at my table, or in the systems I play.

Edit: Let me give more of an example of what I mean

You know the BBEG is a <whatever> and that <thingamabob> will counter him. To determine if you have a <thingamabob>, you would have to make a roll. If you succede, you got one. If you fail, you need to find one, or make one, or buy one. Each of those options would require some dice being rolled too.

So, in the end you acquire a <thingamabob>. Now, you go to fight him. You say "He's going to be where you said, right?" and the Gm says "Sure." But to get there you are going to have to roll dice. To set up your perfect ambush, you are going to have to roll dice. You might get there late because of this, or fail to ambush. To actually fight him, you are going to have to roll dice.

Any number of variables can come up due to the dice.

Hopefully that example is a little more clear as to how I work things.

Jerthanis
2011-04-07, 03:04 PM
Yes, you did, adequately, thank you.

However you also said that if the player's don't know what is going on it is NEVER their fault and 100% the DMs, and that if something the players are unaware of foils their plans it is bad DMing and railroading of the worst sort.


Well... when a player doesn't seem to notice something significant, or remember a detail, it can either be because the language you used to convey the problem wasn't clear, didn't emphasize its significance enough to stand out from the rest of the noise, or it can be because you're gaming with idiot players.

I think in general, gamers are clever, intelligent, bookish people with poor communication skills.

So... would you automatically assume that in general, the problem lies with several smart people all acting stupid, or with one person who doesn't express themselves clearly only making one or two attempts to expose information, and not succeeding?

This is as a GM with damn poor communication skills.


I think the gist of Jamin's statement is that players can't read minds, so if they don't know something, it's probably because they were never told it by the only source of information they have; the GM. They can't conjure information out of nowhere, and if the GM is waiting for the players to ask the right questions, put details together when they don't know they're supposed to be putting details together and are never prompted to, then they're going to get frustrated when they get screwed over and the GM says, "Well, you should've done X, Y or Z" when they had never considered doing X, Y or Z because they were never aware of them.

Players can't MAKE themselves aware of something that they aren't aware of, that's almost everything the GM is supposed to do.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-04-07, 03:44 PM
-snip-

I think the point is that the players may not ask the right questions, but if they don't ask any it should not be the DM's fault. That in itself, if true, disproves the notion that it is always the DM's fault the players don't know something. Of course, if they don't normally ask questions then the DM should either not run a game in which not asking questions is going to severly disavantage them or warn them that this is the case before the game begins (and preferably before they've scheduled around and used time preparing for the game, since they may not be interested after this warning and it's not fair to waste their time).

Jamin
2011-04-07, 03:58 PM
Well... when a player doesn't seem to notice something significant, or remember a detail, it can either be because the language you used to convey the problem wasn't clear, didn't emphasize its significance enough to stand out from the rest of the noise, or it can be because you're gaming with idiot players.

I think in general, gamers are clever, intelligent, bookish people with poor communication skills.

So... would you automatically assume that in general, the problem lies with several smart people all acting stupid, or with one person who doesn't express themselves clearly only making one or two attempts to expose information, and not succeeding?

This is as a GM with damn poor communication skills.


I think the gist of Jamin's statement is that players can't read minds, so if they don't know something, it's probably because they were never told it by the only source of information they have; the GM. They can't conjure information out of nowhere, and if the GM is waiting for the players to ask the right questions, put details together when they don't know they're supposed to be putting details together and are never prompted to, then they're going to get frustrated when they get screwed over and the GM says, "Well, you should've done X, Y or Z" when they had never considered doing X, Y or Z because they were never aware of them.

Players can't MAKE themselves aware of something that they aren't aware of, that's almost everything the GM is supposed to do.

This is what I meant 100%. THANK YOU

fusilier
2011-04-07, 04:17 PM
Your scenario at the beginning of the post is a bit simple, however, I will try to address it first.

Does the GM want the players to fight both the Dragon and the Wizard at the same time?

If the answer is *no* then the GM has several options, the easiest would involve altering the time stream slightly (either the Dragon hasn't arrived yet, or it has just left). Another simple option would to have the Dragon decline to fight.

If the answer is *yes*, then the question is should the GM surprise the players with a Dragon? I would say that's up to the GM, but his players may not like it.

If the answer is *don't care*, then the question becomes, does the GM want to warn the players? If so, then you need to decide how you go about it, what kinds of hints can be dropped, etc. If the warnings aren't sufficient, and the GM knows (or strongly suspects) that the players don't want to fight both the wizard and a dragon, then what should he do? I think there is some flexibility in how to handle the situation, but it requires the GM and players to have a good understanding of each other.

I don't think anybody has actually argued that the GM shouldn't have some secrets. Instead, it was argued that the players can't be faulted for not knowing something. If the players' ignorance wrecks the game, then the responsibility falls on the GM. However, the players' expectations and assumptions will influence whether or not their ignorance will wreck the game. Some players may enjoy twists and turns in the plot, surprises, setbacks, and various distractions from the main goal. Others may not. This leads to a basic argument about the relationship that the GM has with his/her players.

Personally, when timing in my games just works out badly for the players, I'm quick to point out that it is just timing, so they don't think I'm merely trying to railroad them.

*******************
Looking at the detailed example in the original thread: I can see how things fell apart in hindsight.

The players clearly missed your hints, and when the major event finally took place, it appeared to them to simply be an attempt by the GM to derail their own plans.

After reading the background and setting, I should point out that I've never played in a game like that (where all players are evil, and are intent upon destroying the world by creating an undead empire), and I probably don't understand what mentality goes into actually wanting to play in such a game. So, I don't know how qualified I am to make the following claim: Maybe they missed all your hints because they were focused on their own megalomaniacal mission and thought that was the sole point of the entire game.

I say this because the premise is so bizarre to me that I imagine that the novelty of getting to be evil and scheming was enough to prevent them from expecting (and therefore detecting) more nuanced plot developments.

Jamin
2011-04-07, 04:23 PM
I think the point is that the players may not ask the right questions, but if they don't ask any it should not be the DM's fault. That in itself, if true, disproves the notion that it is always the DM's fault the players don't know something. Of course, if they don't normally ask questions then the DM should either not run a game in which not asking questions is going to severly disavantage them or warn them that this is the case before the game begins (and preferably before they've scheduled around and used time preparing for the game, since they may not be interested after this warning and it's not fair to waste their time).

If your players ask no questions than they are the type of people who don't want a plot at all anyway.

Jerthanis
2011-04-07, 04:54 PM
I think the point is that the players may not ask the right questions, but if they don't ask any it should not be the DM's fault. That in itself, if true, disproves the notion that it is always the DM's fault the players don't know something. Of course, if they don't normally ask questions then the DM should either not run a game in which not asking questions is going to severly disavantage them or warn them that this is the case before the game begins (and preferably before they've scheduled around and used time preparing for the game, since they may not be interested after this warning and it's not fair to waste their time).

So it's not the GM's fault if either:

1.) Players who normally ask at least some questions, if not always the right ones, abruptly stop asking any questions, and the GM doesn't react by asking why the players are suddenly not as engaged,

or 2.) the GM runs a game where at least some questions must be asked for players he knows never ask any questions, and doesn't guide them as to how to ask those questions. (though he should warn them ahead of time if he's running such a game)

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 04:55 PM
I am going to broaden the question and assume Jamin only meant situations which cause the PCs to fail because they didn't have the ability to learn the necessary information when he said that it was railroading of the highest order that he would react to by never gaming with the DM again.

This wasn't the situation I was talking about, but if it had been, would it really be so bad? Why?

Sometimes people fail. Sometimes it isn't their fault, and sometimes even the best laid plans go astray. This is realistic and it is dramatic.

It may not be "fair", but that doesn't mean it has no part in the game. Unless you are playing the most light hearted of games failure should be an option, even the DMG recommends that some encounters (I think 5%) should be unwinnable and the best the player's can hope for it to escape with their lives.

Sometimes surprises, even harmful ones, are fun. I remember a few "they have a cave troll!" moments which served to suddenly increase the tension and the feeling of danger for everyone involved and generally increased the fun for everyone involved.

I remember one time when my group was in the climactic final battle against the BBEG. When he was about to go down he pleaded to his master for help, and his master intervened in the fight and forced the player's away.
The player's thought the BBEG was the most powerful force of evil in the world, when they found out that he had a master who was much greater than he this was a surprise that they had no reasonable way of learning and caused them to fail in their goal. However, they all had FUN because it was a startling and dramatic surprise and paved the way for the next campaign.

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 05:00 PM
So it's not the GM's fault if either:

1.) Players who normally ask at least some questions, if not always the right ones, abruptly stop asking any questions, and the GM doesn't react by asking why the players are suddenly not as engaged,

or 2.) the GM runs a game where at least some questions must be asked for players he knows never ask any questions, and doesn't guide them as to how to ask those questions. (though he should warn them ahead of time if he's running such a game)

The player who masterminded the riot is a very self absorbed sort, he simply doesn't care about anyone but his PC. Even when he is playing a good character he simply ignores even extremely strong hooks such as someone running down the street screaming for help (yes this actually happened once). However, the other players seem to not mind investigation.

In my opinion a standard game involves investigation. The rules are written with this assumption, that is why they have skills like search and gather information and many divination spells. If the players came to me and said flat out "we hate investigation" then I would remove it from my games, but until they do that I am still playing with the assumption that investigation will be a part of the game.

Jamin
2011-04-07, 05:22 PM
I am going to broaden the question and assume Jamin only meant situations which cause the PCs to fail because they didn't have the ability to learn the necessary information when he said that it was railroading of the highest order that he would react to by never gaming with the DM again.

This wasn't the situation I was talking about, but if it had been, would it really be so bad? Why?

Sometimes people fail. Sometimes it isn't their fault, and sometimes even the best laid plans go astray. This is realistic and it is dramatic.

It may not be "fair", but that doesn't mean it has no part in the game. Unless you are playing the most light hearted of games failure should be an option, even the DMG recommends that some encounters (I think 5%) should be unwinnable and the best the player's can hope for it to escape with their lives.

Sometimes surprises, even harmful ones, are fun. I remember a few "they have a cave troll!" moments which served to suddenly increase the tension and the feeling of danger for everyone involved and generally increased the fun for everyone involved.

I remember one time when my group was in the climactic final battle against the BBEG. When he was about to go down he pleaded to his master for help, and his master intervened in the fight and forced the player's away.
The player's thought the BBEG was the most powerful force of evil in the world, when they found out that he had a master who was much greater than he this was a surprise that they had no reasonable way of learning and caused them to fail in their goal. However, they all had FUN because it was a startling and dramatic surprise and paved the way for the next campaign.

In your example campaign from the other thread it seemed to me looking at though the players eyes that it was out of left field. Thus anything where it feels like(from the player point of view) the DM just added it to screw you or your choices over is bad. I would not play with a DM who used random side plots that we had no idea are going on, to stop us from succeeding at goals. I would play with a DM who made it hard to win or who put in reasonable twists and turns. This example it is simply the logical next step in the campaign.

fusilier
2011-04-07, 05:31 PM
The player who masterminded the riot is a very self absorbed sort, he simply doesn't care about anyone but his PC. Even when he is playing a good character he simply ignores even extremely strong hooks such as someone running down the street screaming for help (yes this actually happened once). However, the other players seem to not mind investigation.

In my opinion a standard game involves investigation. The rules are written with this assumption, that is why they have skills like search and gather information and many divination spells. If the players came to me and said flat out "we hate investigation" then I would remove it from my games, but until they do that I am still playing with the assumption that investigation will be a part of the game.

If you looked at my earlier post, I addressed this. It's a basic matter of the understanding/relationship between the GM and players, that determines how/if you can surprise them without wrecking the game. Sometimes that relationship gets off-kilter and what would normally have been ok, becomes game wrecking (and I speculated on why that might have happened).

If the players aren't used to your style, you might have to work them into it. I often have to do that in my games as they tend to involve very subtle puzzles, and require a lot of questions, compared to the games that the players usually play in.

jseah
2011-04-07, 07:29 PM
If the players want to be genre-retarded, it's not my fault they lose.
<...>
I also like including things that are dangerous and totally unknown. The only way a PC can figure out if it's ultimately safe or not is to just do it. Roll the dice. Take a risk. Or not. No one's forcing them to do anything. They could always go farm dirt, make some profession checks. It's up to them.
It is situations like these that I would consider even creating such a setting "bad form" as a DM.

Not because secrets were kept but that the system as a whole must allow only as much impact as forestallable by a group with an equal amount of resources.

To clarify that statement, I'll use your example:
"more than half of them are looking to kick off the ultimate showdown for ultimate destiny"
And the example of the OP's original problem in his thread:
Player secret cult's plans gets trumped by NPC secret cult superweapon with drawbacks

If you want players to anticipate and block every potential faction that could take over the world so they can take over the world themselves, you need to run a game where the players are controllers of one of the most powerful and biggest faction. Eg. You are the American Congress

If any chump with some magic, and barely any footprint on the world can have game-changing powers, you have a problem. It's not a problem, if say doing that ritual requires conspicious amounts of some specific reagent (eg. the church is buying every single cinnamon stick on the market they can get their hands on...) that makes the "secret cult" indirectly involve at least as many people as the ritual itself will affect.
But if a ritual that "wins" a scenario (or causes one major faction to immediately lose) only requires 10 trained cultists and one necromancer, no other inputs, with a 1 minute cast time, you have a major problem. There's no reasonable way to prevent it since it's too easy.

FYI, fomenting a riot or influencing people is not a game-changing effect. They had been undermining support from several directions and they were highly visible in their attempt. At least to those who were directly exposed.

Basically, you make game-changers too easy. Ideally, you have all the factions vying for control, one being the players, and they rise and fall incrementally with respect to each other. No, "suddenly X happens and you lose", no "big red button that can blow up the world and fits in a 2 inch box".
Saying that "you had a chance to notice it" isn't going to help as any move has to be at least as visible as the effect it has.

An "instant win" isn't totally unusable, but it must be unwieldy, hard to use and so obvious you have to be blind to miss it.

To summarize:
Winning by instant win condition has to be at least as hard as doing it conventionally.
Forcing a "once and for all" battle or conflict has to be incredibly difficult as well. Not quite as hard, but everything coming down to what happens in the next 10 hours has to be the result of a long prior skirmishing and maneuvering stage to cause such a decisive moment to happen.


EDIT:
The thing is, presenting this in a story way is very difficult. It is hard to capture the many factors that go into making a situation the way it is without actually being there and playing that game.
I can forgive story-driven games for having those kinds of effects as it is simpler and thus more centered on the characters doing those things.

TheCountAlucard
2011-04-07, 07:40 PM
Hmm... well, lemme put it this way...

If a GM isn't supposed to keep secrets, than I've been doing it wrong for years, and nobody's bothered to tell me such...

Amphetryon
2011-04-07, 07:41 PM
In your example campaign from the other thread it seemed to me looking at though the players eyes that it was out of left field. Thus anything where it feels like(from the player point of view) the DM just added it to screw you or your choices over is bad. I would not play with a DM who used random side plots that we had no idea are going on, to stop us from succeeding at goals. I would play with a DM who made it hard to win or who put in reasonable twists and turns. This example it is simply the logical next step in the campaign.
Emphasis mine.

So that I understand, and do not misconstrue, your point, could you clarify the difference between "random side plots that we had no idea are going on" and "things that happen off-screen as a result of a fully immersive, vibrant world that has NPCs with their own motivations" (even if those motivations might sometimes interfere with your chances of success)?

Just_Ice
2011-04-07, 08:21 PM
If they're not arbitrarily completely screwed, it's fine to have the kinds of secrets that can unintuitively make life difficult for the players.

Even if they do get screwed, it can be fun for the players depending on who they are.

jseah
2011-04-07, 08:34 PM
This wasn't the situation I was talking about, but if it had been, would it really be so bad? Why?

Sometimes people fail. Sometimes it isn't their fault, and sometimes even the best laid plans go astray. This is realistic and it is dramatic.
Yes, plans do go wrong an awful lot. However, those plans going wrong have a reason to go wrong when they do. The most interesting failures I have seen are the ones based on knock-on effects, "for want of a nail...", they are unpredictable due to a lack of information or too high complexity.

Things like random masters of BBEGs suddenly appearing out of nowhere would be problematic in my view. If that master was so powerful, that master should have been doing something in the world instead of leaving it all up to his less experienced subordinate. Perhaps his plan would have succeeded had he done so from the beginning.

And whatever he had done, his high power ought to have more of an effect than the BBEG, and thus be more visible and so should have been the *real* bbeg instead.

Then again, I dislike a "final fight" ending to a game anyway. =P

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 09:15 PM
Yes, plans do go wrong an awful lot. However, those plans going wrong have a reason to go wrong when they do. The most interesting failures I have seen are the ones based on knock-on effects, "for want of a nail...", they are unpredictable due to a lack of information or too high complexity.

Things like random masters of BBEGs suddenly appearing out of nowhere would be problematic in my view. If that master was so powerful, that master should have been doing something in the world instead of leaving it all up to his less experienced subordinate. Perhaps his plan would have succeeded had he done so from the beginning.

And whatever he had done, his high power ought to have more of an effect than the BBEG, and thus be more visible and so should have been the *real* bbeg instead.

Then again, I dislike a "final fight" ending to a game anyway. =P

In my specific example it was an elder god that had been banished since before the beginning of the universe, so no, he couldn't have had more of an influence on the world than his minions until he succeeded in finding a way back into the world.
But even if he was just a powerful guy, as long as he stayed in the background and made sure more obvious people get the credit for his schemes, there is no reason why anyone would be aware of him even if he is the most powerful being in the world. There are a lot of puppet master style villains who are almost never seen directly, like almost all of the big bads in the world of darkness setting.

I don't recall exactly how final fight ended, but wasn't it you just track down the evil wheelchair guy and threw him out a window? Double Dragon I remember had a twist ending though.

jseah
2011-04-07, 09:22 PM
Eh, I didn't know Final Fight was a name of a game... =/

Puppet master style villans are nice, but generally they become puppet master style villians because they do not have alot of personal power. If they could do useful and powerful things themselves, it would be a waste to not use that power.
- EDIT: elder evil is a puppet master villian who can't do anything personally. He can't do anything until the victory condition is met. That's fine.

If they had just gone full force from the start, they have less need for the layers of deception that goes with puppet mastering.

It's also a small gripe I have with most magic systems being that magic has a tendency to concentrate power into the hands of a few people, making them basically independent unpredictable entities that are impossible to control or persuade.

Thorcrest
2011-04-08, 08:11 AM
Emphasis mine.

So that I understand, and do not misconstrue, your point, could you clarify the difference between "random side plots that we had no idea are going on" and "things that happen off-screen as a result of a fully immersive, vibrant world that has NPCs with their own motivations" (even if those motivations might sometimes interfere with your chances of success)?

This, so very much this... all of the best games I have played in, and, in fact, the games that I run have people besides the PCs doing things, and those events don't simply change because it is inconvenient for the PCs... tough break, **** happens.

Basically, the DM needs to keep secrets, players cannot just know exactly everything, but there should be a way for most secrets to be discovered (at least in most games, sometimes secrets should be nigh undiscoverable to surprise the players). For instance, In the simple Wizard and Dragon plot, it would almost certainly be possible for them to discover that they were planning on forming an alliance as well as when, but they might not discover either fact or only learn one. No matter what the players know, the DM has two options, he can continue the NPCs and tell the PCs better luck next time, or he can just remove the Dragon, breaking continuity, and the players can have everything work out for what they want.

Personally I always chose the first option as the game might revolve around the PCs, but the NPCs and the World don't. EVERYTHING in a world is time sensitive, and it is up to the players to determine what happens to them.

For instance, I am in a game where I was raising an army to liberate a High Temple, and the DM had secretly written that if we stayed for 14 days, in the same area, we would be attacked by the enemy forces. Needless to say, we did not expect this and our forces were crushed, but we got away. We had, however, lost a powerful artifact that we need to complete the quest. Thus, now we have to both recapture this artifact from the enemy and build a new army to win the quest, but it was fun all the same.

Now, if we had known this because the "DM doesn't keep secrets", we would know exactly what we were up against and how to beat them and when to avoid them etcetera, etcetera. To me, this would never be as much fun. The same goes for the Dragon example, if the DM told us there was a Dragon before the fight without us learning it, I'd feel cheated of the surprise, and if he removed it and we later discovered that, I'd feel cheated of the encounter.

Saying the GM isn't allowed to have secrets also means that all the plans of the BBEG must be revealed to the PCs. This includes any contingencies or escape plans. For example, if the BBEG has to be killed, but he has an escape that they didn't anticipate, the players should not feel cheated if they fail as they did not account for all possibilities as they are not omnipotent, and they should always expect something they don't know about to take place.

In reality, people don't know everything about every situation, but almost everything can be learned if given enough time. If you take to much time, however, things might change, or you might not do what it is you need to in the time required. The same is true of players.

If you have players that feel cheated when they lose because of something they did not know, show that it has been in your notes for the adventure, and then reveal all the clues they had gotten, as well as others they could have learned if they had done X instead of Y.

TL;DR Some things are meant to be impossible, and other things are meant to be surprises. While the majority of tasks should be able to be accomplished by the PCs, the world does not revolve around them and they are not Omnipotent. Sometimes NPCs have plans which they did not account for that screw them over, and sometimes they won't uncover all the secrets or clues.

Killer Angel
2011-04-08, 08:25 AM
Most games have investigation rules in them, for example D&D has the search and gather information skills. I have both ran and played in numerous games, as well as reading published modules, where player investigation and insight was a part of the game, and some of them which had totally unpredictable surprises and plot twists. I never had a problem with it, or even considered that it could be a problem unless (like anything) executed poorly.

However, Jamin makes it seem like this is always a horrible thing worthy of immediate DM booting.

OK, didn't read the whole thread, but anyway:
One of the DM's duties, is to have secrets and secret agenda for the BBEG.
One of the players' duties, is to discover those secrets... if they fail in doing that, there will be consequences.
It's unfair only if those secrets are created on the run to screw the players, or if you deliberately choose that players cannot in no way discover them and influence the events.

faceroll
2011-04-08, 10:30 AM
If you want players to anticipate and block every potential faction that could take over the world so they can take over the world themselves, you need to run a game where the players are controllers of one of the most powerful and biggest faction. Eg. You are the American Congress

Nowhere did I say nor imply that. Just because you had two super powers vying for control during the cold war didn't mean there weren't regional conflicts and gambits. Pick a side, game the others. Not all actors will be equal, either.
I imagine it as like FFA play in Starcraft.

Except in D&D the mother of all wars is actually a mother; proto-deity, the physical embodiment of war, and from it spawns all strife. And sometimes that **** leaks into reality and it is a bummer.


If any chump with some magic, and barely any footprint on the world can have game-changing powers, you have a problem.

I just assume a Gaussian distribution of chumps with magic lining up to do things, with the players being the straw that breaks the camel's back. I mean, otherwise, where's the fun in being the player if you're ultimately just a cog? Plus they're going to hit level umpteen, which makes them a lot more than a chump.

Remember, a single wight can cause a HUGE amount of damage, but it can also be stopped by a handful of chumps with magic items.


The second part of my statement didn't really relate to the first. It was more like finding a mysterious magic item or portal or something like that, and not being able to ascertain exactly what it does other than good 'ole empiricism.

jseah
2011-04-08, 10:51 AM
Nowhere did I say nor imply that. Just because you had two super powers vying for control during the cold war didn't mean there weren't regional conflicts and gambits.
Sure there were regional conflicts and gambits, but smaller nations had no chance at becoming the winning superpower.

If that was the goal set for your players, then they have to be in a position to achieve that goal.


Remember, a single wight can cause a HUGE amount of damage, but it can also be stopped by a handful of chumps with magic items.
That IS the problem. It's too unstable. If there are many ways to cause huge disruption, each of which also have a relatively easy way to stop them, it becomes a matter of who manages to bypass the other guys' counter to your latest superweapon.
IE. whoever fails to think of X loses. Instantly.

Think of it like this:
There are 20 "superweapon" instant win class artifacts/wightoclypse/magic ritual that you can do.
Each of which has a perfect hard counter that is 10 times easier to use than the instant win move.
EDIT:
actually, it's more like, the "superweapon" class move is *easy* and to continue the starcraft analogy, it's like being able to build protoss motherships with 200 minerals and no tech.
With many choices of which mothership you want to build, all of which act completely differently and have different counters.

And while a mothership-killer might also cost 100 minerals and no tech, the game devolves into move-countermove until someone forgets something.

faceroll
2011-04-08, 12:36 PM
That IS the problem. It's too unstable. If there are many ways to cause huge disruption, each of which also have a relatively easy way to stop them, it becomes a matter of who manages to bypass the other guys' counter to your latest superweapon.
IE. whoever fails to think of X loses. Instantly.

Think of it like this:
There are 20 "superweapon" instant win class artifacts/wightoclypse/magic ritual that you can do.
Each of which has a perfect hard counter that is 10 times easier to use than the instant win move.
EDIT:
actually, it's more like, the "superweapon" class move is *easy* and to continue the starcraft analogy, it's like being able to build protoss motherships with 200 minerals and no tech.
With many choices of which mothership you want to build, all of which act completely differently and have different counters.

And while a mothership-killer might also cost 100 minerals and no tech, the game devolves into move-countermove until someone forgets something.

For every necromantic cabal that is creating a wight for a wightocalypse, there's a hit squad of paladins. That's what I meant by Gaussian distribution. When PCs get involved, they get to tip the scales, one way or the other. If they choose not to get involved, then things escalate. Depending on how I'm feeling, the paladins win or the cabal wins or they both get tricked by Kyuss but Kyuss loses to Vecna, and the hordes of Erythnul burn everything to the ground, led by the PCs on vampiric black dragons.

Anyway, in most cases, a bit of research and metagame awareness will inform the PCs that they aren't the only kids on the block with grand schemes. Stopping most things should be easy, if they take the time, commit resources, make the right allies, and of course, uncover the plot.

But yeah, in most of my sandbox games, if they play long enough, the PCs will lose.

Icedaemon
2011-04-08, 01:20 PM
Ummm... Wow. Yes, they're allowed. Of course they are. Removing an opponent because the PCs dropped in? No. Just no. They can have the encounter, the world doesn't revolve around the PCs and 5% of encounters are supposed to be "Overwhelming" anyway. Sure, give them a round of surprise to get away, they did just barge in unexpected, but they don't get a free pass just because they didn't know it was there. The idea that something negative can only happen when the PCs know it's coming is completely alien to me. This post may be exaggerated, but you're not alone in thinking that Jamin's response is odd.

I am also in this camp. The PCs are not the only ones who at any given time actually act. The villains and allies are all the more interesting if the players find them doing something not directly related to the PCs, or even if the PCs arrive at the castle only to find out that the person they are looking for is currently absent. However, when the players do barge in on a situation that is over their heads, a good GM should not immediately laugh and wipe them out - the players should have some time to try and run or fast-talk their way out of the mess. That said, if they do attack an obviously superior foe despite the chance to back off, laugh and wipe away.


Though as a DM, would this happen, most dragons would just sit back and watch(unless attacked). A dragon can care less if some evil wizard is attacked or even killed. To a dragon, if the wizard is such a fool that he can be killed easily, then he is not worth being an ally. The dragon might also like to watch the fight and see how 'tough' the wizard is. Not to mention the ultimate of 'saving' the wizard at the last round, and then forcing the wizard into a very, very, one sided alliance. And so on and so on.

I do agree with this bit though. If the PCs are deferential to the dragon and the alliance has not been sealed then, especially if the dragon is chaotic evil, the PCs could and perhaps should get a chance to assault their intended foe without interference.

Jamin
2011-04-08, 06:24 PM
I going to say one last thing and than be done. Really the only problem I have is when the DM thinks that their story is far too cool or epic or whatever to let the PCs shape what happens in it. I m annoyed when a DM uses the epic story not to shape player actions but control them ie any time the DM keeps something in the background because they don't want the PCs ruining it. I am accusing NO ONE HERE OF DOING THAT but I think that the OP's players(rightly or wrongly) felt that he was. As a player I am annoyed when it seems like the DM has been hiding a bit of the plot from me especially when he uses it against me. If I did not follow clear clues that he left me or better yet it was call back to some action I took early in the story that is fine. However I don't care if you have pages of notes as to why something is happening if there is no way for me to see the WHAT WHERE WHEN WHY and HOW I going to feel like you were leaving me out in the cold. If it is clear why something is happening I have no issue with it. I dislike using the excuse of well the npc has been planning this for years. This fine if it is something that can be combated or if the players learn about the plan beforehand but I dislike the idea of having major game changing plans just appear out of nowhere. Some people may not. I only ever said that I would not DM with a person who used this tactic. This is all my opinion. You are free to DM however you want just don't expect everyone to like it. There going to be people who think that I being close minded about and they are right. When I play I game of DnD I want to be the hero the star of story. I also want to know the story. Not all at once that is just silly no where did i ever say that but I don't want to be doing something and than get pushed into doing something else by something I have no power over. This is a very long post so I think I will end it here.
There will still be someone who thinks that I want the BBEG to just say his plans

jseah
2011-04-09, 08:54 AM
For every necromantic cabal that is creating a wight for a wightocalypse, there's a hit squad of paladins.
<...>
Anyway, in most cases, a bit of research and metagame awareness will inform the PCs that they aren't the only kids on the block with grand schemes.
Think of it from the perspective of a town:

One necromancer could ruin the day (or night) of many many people. He appears as a hooded old man with unusually heavy cloaks (lead lined) who is just staying at the inn for a bit.
Sure, the local church gets wind of him and stomps him into the ground before it gets out of hand. Maybe he made a mistake. But people died, and the town nearly got razed.

Next month, the werewolves in the forest bite someone and suddenly there's a rogue wolf in town killing chickens and people at night. Adventurers stop him or her.

And then one shadow escapes the binding of the local wizard and ends up causing a shadow'calypse and the town dies anyway. Sacred Exorcist clerics from the capital note the loss and 'port in with all spells blazing and burn the place to the ground.

You see how unstable that is? All the threats originate from just a few people and so are basically impossible to detect if played realistically. Apart from the werewolf, but the original werewolf is gone and never caught.
In fact, in every case, you would need someone *more* powerful than the threat in order to detect and stop it. Church > necromancer. Adventurers > lone werewolf. Sacred Exorcist clerics > shadow army.

You have the problem of why the world hasn't burnt to the ground yet.


If it is clear why something is happening I have no issue with it. I dislike using the excuse of well the npc has been planning this for years.
What I meant to be suggesting is that game-changing moves of ANY kind should not be possible to be kept secret. Small ones, ok, but things that affect a large number of people should need at least a comparable number of people to pull off.

Of course, it can still look like something was kept secret if it's too small to see. If the players are pushing armies around on a world map and setting up teleportation networks across planes, a few rumours about a necromancer in a backwater town might just get ignored. But then they ignored it.

dsmiles
2011-04-09, 10:32 AM
And then one shadow escapes the binding of the local wizard and ends up causing a shadow'calypse and the town dies anyway. Sacred Exorcist clerics from the capital note the loss and 'port in with all spells blazing and burn the place to the ground.
Shadow'calypse...I love it (as long as I can pronounce it "shad-ah-cah-lips")...:smallbiggrin:

Claudius Maximus
2011-04-09, 01:07 PM
You have the problem of why the world hasn't burnt to the ground yet.

Upon first hearing my description of the D&D world, one of my players asked a very good question:

"How are there people?"

I think adventurers have to be much more common and proactive than most campaigns seem to assume to realistically keep the five thousand species of maneating horrors in D&D at bay. I "solve" this by cutting down the monsters though.

Icedaemon
2011-04-10, 02:01 AM
Not necessarily adventurers, but instead simply high-level people:
1 - High-level dependable people on the side of civilisation. Small villages might get overrun, but cities and nations have groups of elite troops who are mid-high level (~12-16 when playing a standard 20-level setting where epic levels are not reached or only occur at endgame, lower if there is a level cap). These people, retired heroes or grizzled veterans, can provide PCs with something to retreat to. However, they can't often go on lengthy campaigns to hunt down a foe because they need to be at the ready to stop sudden attacks by particularly deadly monsters, cults ect and maybe occasionally help out an outlying village if the major sites are safe.
2 - Sensible villains. A powerful dragon or monstrous tyrant will probably not want an apocalypse starting in his or her neighbourhood no more than a goody-goody would. Tales of insane necromancers with world-domination plans fighting and getting stomped by an ancient dragon who dislikes the idea of living in an undead-infested environment might amuse players, at least when they themselves were not preparing to take the wizard on themselves. One who is labelled evil does not and should not play nice with someone they perceive as evil.

dsmiles
2011-04-10, 07:39 AM
2 - Sensible villains. A powerful dragon or monstrous tyrant will probably not want an apocalypse starting in his or her neighbourhood no more than a goody-goody would. Tales of insane necromancers with world-domination plans fighting and getting stomped by an ancient dragon who dislikes the idea of living in an undead-infested environment might amuse players, at least when they themselves were not preparing to take the wizard on themselves. One who is labelled evil does not and should not play nice with someone they perceive as evil.As much as I would like to agree, your last statement kind of throws this one off for me. Evil-aligned people are just as capable of cooperation towards a mutual goal as good-aligned people. Just because their alliance lasts only as long as they have mutual goals, doesn't mean that they can't work together. But yeah, evil-aligned characters (unless of the insane world-destroying variety) dislike apocalypses as much as a good-aligned characters. After all, they have to live in the world, too.

Mutazoia
2011-04-10, 09:11 AM
An example of this, from another thread, was a Vampire game where consuming Demon Blood resulted in instant death...if the players have never heard anything about this, them dying is the GM's fault. If, on the other hand, you've dropped hints to that effect, you've done your job as a DM.


Well there are a lot of things I've never heard of personally, and I don't assume that I'm going to be perfectly safe because I haven't heard of them. If I find a random glass of goo, I'm not going to drink it and assume I'm going to be peachy keen in the morning, simply because I am ignorant of what the contents actually were. If you find a bottle of Iokane powder and snort it down with out checking to see what the hell it is you deserve what you get. IRL and in an RPG.

If it's reasonable that the PC's should know something then they should know. If they walk up to the BBEG's tower and kick in the front door with out looking in a window, then they get what they deserve. To fiat something just because the PC's failed to take precautions is setting the DM up for future head-ache. They'll always want something fix or nurfed or removed because its too hard, or they weren't expecting the pool of lava to actually burn then when they jumped in.

I knew a guy (back in the old days) who would buy a published adventure, read it and give his favorite character all the loot and XP, saying he "ran himself" through the adventure. If you constantly fix things that PC's find too hard, this is basically what you are doing. You have a few people that sit around a table for a few hours and scribble loot and XP onto a character sheet and roll dice occasionally.

Obviously I'm a fan of letting people suffer the consequences of their actions (or in-actions). If they don't check for traps, the trap isn't going to magically disappear. Otherwise you might as well just Monty Haul it.

jseah
2011-04-10, 10:32 AM
Not necessarily adventurers, but instead simply high-level people:
D&D 3.5:
Well, picture yourself as a bunch of high level people. You have a party of 4, wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue. You have to defend a city for twenty years without it getting destroyed. After twenty years, your successors have been trained and you can retire.

Defend... from what? Every single way one can screw up a city badly. Riots as in the OP's original thread, possibly magic enhanced? Gotta protect the peace. Uppity necromancer? Marauding dragon?
Were-rats in the sewers?
- You start with one, end up with an army
Shadows gone loose?
- people suddenly disappear from their houses overnight. Whole family gone, but everything is still there. Entire streets can disappear in a few hours.
Binding ritual gone wrong?
- *one* wizard failing a spellcraft check
Obscure cult which can precipitate any of the above and directly destroy the city? (level 9 caster = control weather = no city, you have 10 minutes warning)
- How many cults do we have today? Alot, and more go unnoticed.

How about more obscure ones? Vargouille plague. (MM monster) Mind Flayer infiltration. Incorporeal anything with a vengeance.

Can you predict everything? How do you keep tabs on the roughly 200k permanent population and the visitors and merchants who come and go by the boatload?

Any:
Essentially, if there are many ways to destroy a city with relatively few people in a short span of time, there won't BE a city at all. Sure, most people don't want to blow up a city, but there will a few who try. And sometimes even accidents destroy a city.

All it takes is one to get through...

Therefore, the solution is to make destroying cities hard. If you can't destroy a city without recruiting an army of whatever you use to do it (classical army, undead, conspirators and corrupted officials, political youth group turned to violence) then the existence of a city is quite stable.

While you can't monitor everyone, if any organization trying to destroy or coopt a city has to be of a comparable size to the city itself (or it's authorities), then you only need to check the most important leads because anything that could even be a threat has a huge 'footprint' and you will see it coming.


This generalizes to most things. Doing anything that affects alot of people should require alot of people.

Amphetryon
2011-04-10, 11:03 AM
This generalizes to most things. Doing anything that affects alot of people should require alot of people.But if the people affected aren't the people your party is likely to be interacting with, there's an eminently reasonable chance the party never hears about it.

Google tells me a reggae group called Fusion Band is tearing up the charts in the Caribbean as I type this, but until I bothered to look, I had no idea the group existed, let alone of their popularity.

jseah
2011-04-10, 12:12 PM
But how much does that band really affect the Carribean? I mean, they're popular, sure, but they aren't suddenly making a bunch of fanatically loyal fans ready to be their own personal army. =P

I mean, even though 9/11 was a big deal, fundamentally, it didn't hurt the US all that much. Definitely alot less than a rogue tornado or shadow swarm would, even if we had magic.

Not sure how accurate this is, but I might venture the proposition that all major changes to the world, like a city destroyed in less than a year, or fundamental processes, like a shift in cultural attitudes, are large and slow processes. Also very obvious, sometimes so obvious that we miss it totally. (historians are good at this? maybe?)

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-10, 12:14 PM
Not sure how accurate this is, but I might venture the proposition that all major changes to the world, like a city destroyed in less than a year, or fundamental processes, like a shift in cultural attitudes, are large and slow processes. Also very obvious, sometimes so obvious that we miss it totally. (historians are good at this? maybe?)

Well, back in the day you could raze and sack a city with a few centuries of men, some torches, and a lot of gumption. Thing's have changed since the cities of those days, though. For one thing, leveling an entire city is a lot harder now, not to mention the fact that people usually rebuild.

Amphetryon
2011-04-10, 12:24 PM
But how much does that band really affect the Carribean? I mean, they're popular, sure, but they aren't suddenly making a bunch of fanatically loyal fans ready to be their own personal army. =PThe large number of folks that buy, play, or listen to their music, or who are involved in the recording industry, or who host their concerts, or who market reggae in the Caribbean and beyond? I'd say that's entirely likely to number in the thousands of people affected, just by virtue of their current listed position in the charts.

jseah
2011-04-10, 02:11 PM
The large number of folks that buy, play, or listen to their music, or who are involved in the recording industry, or who host their concerts, or who market reggae in the Caribbean and beyond? I'd say that's entirely likely to number in the thousands of people affected, just by virtue of their current listed position in the charts.
But what can they actually do with those people? They can't stop singing.
Plus, the people who help them get their music out there, like the stores and salespeople and advertising, do count (even a little bit) to the people needed to reach those thousands of listeners.

It's a bit like the OP's group who started the riot. They involved alot of people by pulling loads of strings and coopting NPCs to be their allies, knowing or not, willing or not. That's loads of people and quite easy to see by any authority keeping a close eye on things.

But if there was a spell (say level 5) that suddenly sparked a riot for no rhyme or reason? THAT would be problematic. And just as problematic as the GM's ritual of peace. One guy casts the spell, and poof, riot.

EDIT: I would say that trying to do big things must be made to require alot of people, which then solves the problem of unpredictable "you lose" GM secret plans the players failed to detect.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-04-10, 02:37 PM
But if there was a spell (say level 5) that suddenly sparked a riot for no rhyme or reason? THAT would be problematic. And just as problematic as the GM's ritual of peace. One guy casts the spell, and poof, riot.

You mean Widened Confusion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/confusion.htm)?

Ravens_cry
2011-04-10, 02:39 PM
Mass Suggestion also comes to mind. "Go express disdain for authority violently."

Amphetryon
2011-04-10, 02:42 PM
But what can they actually do with those people? They can't stop singing.
Plus, the people who help them get their music out there, like the stores and salespeople and advertising, do count (even a little bit) to the people needed to reach those thousands of listeners.

It's a bit like the OP's group who started the riot. They involved alot of people by pulling loads of strings and coopting NPCs to be their allies, knowing or not, willing or not. That's loads of people and quite easy to see by any authority keeping a close eye on things.

But if there was a spell (say level 5) that suddenly sparked a riot for no rhyme or reason? THAT would be problematic. And just as problematic as the GM's ritual of peace. One guy casts the spell, and poof, riot.
That reads as a considerable shift of your original point, which was that you cannot involve that many people in an endeavor without everyone knowing about it.

randomhero00
2011-04-10, 03:18 PM
Some secrets are good. A lot are bad. Fairly simple to say hard to DM.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-10, 03:53 PM
(2) Ask the Players to "sum up" the adventure so far
This helps you get a sense of what your Players are thinking about. If you're lucky, you'll discover they actually have been paying attention to your clues. More often you'll discover that they have misremembered information you've given them and this is a good opportunity to correct their misrepresentation. If they have absolutely nothing to say about the hooks you've given them, you can add a mention of "don't forget about..." and see if that turns on any lightbulbs. If that doesn't help then...

This is extremely handy, yes. Though it's annoying if you have to use it often, as it can lead to loads of repetition and freeze the game as the players stop to argue about how some (insignificant) detail was.

Anyways, I can't but disagree strongly with the sentiment that "if the players fail to comprehend something, it's always your fault."

For any given system with a stated function, there's a treshold of simplicity you can't go any simpler from without falling short of implementing the function. If you've already reached the simplest form for a given task and someone still fails to get it, it's their fault for being idiots. Trying to take the blame yourself is just a way of creating needless stress.

As for how this relates to keeping secrets, secrets are fundamental for myriad possible games. You can't play a murder mystery or horror without them. Nixing secrets cause the game to fall short of its stated goals.

Personally, I misinform my players constantly. I deal with riddles, half-truths, koans, omnious silence and cryptical smiles. Watching my players trying to navigate through it is part of the fun! Heck, sometimes I withhold information from even myself. It allows for much greater extent of mystery and surprise than the alternative. It just requires me to accept that sometimes, my players will fail. But that's a price I'm willing to pay.

TheCountAlucard
2011-04-10, 04:35 PM
Personally, I misinform my players constantly. I deal with riddles, half-truths, koans, omnious silence and cryptical smiles. Watching my players trying to navigate through it is part of the fun!Okay, it is pretty fun when you say, "You don't see anybody in the room." :smallamused:

Or, for that matter, "As far as you can tell, the only effect the potion had was restoring her to full health." :smallamused:

Sure, half the time there really isn't anything there, but the off-chance that it might does a pretty good job of getting players to think.

Actually, this can go either way, good or bad. They didn't spot the ninja, okay, but that potion also made her immune to disease and poison for a year and a day. For both cases, there's no reason their characters should know that information, so posing it in that fashion is actually pretty reasonable.

jseah
2011-04-10, 05:42 PM
That reads as a considerable shift of your original point, which was that you cannot involve that many people in an endeavor without everyone knowing about it.
Not exactly. My original point was that any endeavor aiming to achieve big things should have to involve many people.
This being a matter of game balance and for the sake of a believable world.

I took it as a given that anything involving many people is obvious enough that everyone would know about it.

Sorry if I implied otherwise. I'll go look and edit.


ScionoftheVoid and Ravens_cry:
Good one! So those are problematic then. Although in the case of a spell, the riot doesn't last quite as long nor spreads through a city due to unhappiness. Just a load of chaos for practically no effort.


EDIT: it appears that I have failed to link this to my original point. Again. Since lone movers and shakers are hard to track down if they don't want to be, being only a few people; anything they do, if NPC, has a high chance of appearing as "secret" to the players.

I would say that the OP's question can be answered as: some secret are bad as a result of how the game works, not that having secrets was bad.

Mutazoia
2011-04-10, 08:23 PM
Puppet master style villans are nice, but generally they become puppet master style villians because they do not have alot of personal power. If they could do useful and powerful things themselves, it would be a waste to not use that power.

This is not always true. A wise man once said "The problem of ruling the world if finding some one to run it for you." You can be the biggest baddest evilest evil wizard on the planet but your still one person. You NEED those faceless minions to do most of the heavy lifting. Besides if your a SMART BBEW, you don't WANT everybody knowing it was you all along until you've won. Why set your self up to be a target for every half-arsed adventuring party in the world. Let them throw themselves on your minion's swords.

Some villains DO have that much power, but cannot or chose not to use it directly.

Think of how boring the Lord of the Rings books would have been if Saron and got off his evil backside and hunted the One Ring down himself.

"Hmmm..." Sauron thought. "The ring is in this shire place. I guess I'll go get it."

Sauron stood, stretched a moment, finished his beer, scratched his belly and teleported into Bag End.

Bilbo looked up in surprise. "Excuse me," Said Bilbo "Can I help you?"

"Why yes." Sauron replied, "I'll have my ring back now." and promptly turned Bilbo into a pile of ash. Taking the one ring from its glass jar on the the mantle and, slipping it on his finger, he turned the rest of the Shire into a smouldering cinder just because he could.

"Well...off to kill off the rest of the population of Middle Earth." Said Sauron. Whistling a jaunty tune he did just that. The end.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-10, 08:25 PM
Well, Sauron in LotR was throne-bound by that time, and even then was basically a walking corpse of ash. He could move around on his own, but that would take, like, effort.

Mutazoia
2011-04-10, 08:27 PM
Well, back in the day you could raze and sack a city with a few centuries of men, some torches, and a lot of gumption. Thing's have changed since the cities of those days, though. For one thing, leveling an entire city is a lot harder now, not to mention the fact that people usually rebuild.


Well....technically it's a lot easier to raze a city these days. Press one button and "Poof" no more city (and nobody is going to rebuild there either).

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-10, 08:28 PM
Well....technically it's a lot easier to raze a city these days. Press one button and "Poof" no more city (and nobody is going to rebuild there either).

That's not razing. That's exploding!

Razing is a dignified and timeless process that involves an army. :/

jseah
2011-04-10, 08:37 PM
Besides if your a SMART BBEW, you don't WANT everybody knowing it was you all along until you've won.
<...>
Some villains DO have that much power, but cannot or chose not to use it directly.
It's not about avoiding adventuring parties. I'm saying that destroying or conquering the village/city/world/plane should be difficult enough, and *require* enough people that you cannot avoid those adventuring parties and have to stand up against everyone who doesn't like you.

As it is, causing havoc and destruction should never be easy on a large scale. And how simply solving them without directly negotiating (through spell or force of arms) should be equally diffiult.

And if a BBEG can't use his power, it's as good as not having it.

Mutazoia
2011-04-10, 09:41 PM
And if a BBEG can't use his power, it's as good as not having it.

Tell that to Sauron. I'm sure his bazillion Orcs would love to debate the fact with you :smallsmile:

In this case the "can't use it" means that if he DID use it, the campaign/story is over. Now. Do not pass Rivendell, do not collect Arwen.

Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do that thing. Only a bat-excrement insane BBEG would use his ultimate destroy-everything-kill everybody-I'm the last bunghole on the cinder ability until he's sure he's going to lose. If BBEG's goal is to take over the world he needs the minions. Again...only one person...can't be everywhere and run everything at once. Can't feed your vast army of slaves on dust and ash. Can't have a harem of skeletons....well you CAN...if your into that sort of thing...what ever floats your boat....I'm not here to judge....

Mutazoia
2011-04-10, 09:45 PM
Razing is a dignified and timeless process that involves an army. :/

Oh yes...very dignified.

"Pardon me sir, but would you mind awfully if I rotoruted your sphincter with my pike?"

"Not at all my good man. Be my guest"

"Terribly kind of you."

"Not at all old bean, happy to help."

jseah
2011-04-10, 11:00 PM
In this case the "can't use it" means that if he DID use it, the campaign/story is over. Now. Do not pass Rivendell, do not collect Arwen.
<...>
If BBEG's goal is to take over the world he needs the minions. Again...only one person...can't be everywhere and run everything at once.
You can use a total destruction spell or device by not using it.

The cold war was all about who had nukes and wasn't using them. MAD diplomacy.

And the point about needing minions is right. He does need minions, but he should also do things himself if he can. If he has a superweapon spell or insane combat ability, he should be using it. Plus, his minions are obvious. You don't get "suddenly, an army of orcs rides over the horizon and overruns your city".
You can see him coming and trying to take over the world. Because doing so should be obvious and take a long time.

This ought to scale downwards into the smaller operations, even most adventures really.

EDIT:
And, if he uses the superweapon spell, then you have no campaign; you need a reason for him to use it by not using it, or you really have no campaign.

It's like saying that the BBEG was trying to kill everyone in a city by fomenting riots and so on. And then when the adventurers bust into his lair, they get swarmed by shadows and die.
So why didn't he use those shadows in the first place? He ought to have, even if it meant he would win. Therefore, he should not have those shadows.

Mutazoia
2011-04-10, 11:13 PM
You can use a total destruction spell or device by not using it.

The cold war was all about who had nukes and wasn't using them. MAD diplomacy.

And the point about needing minions is right. He does need minions, but he should also do things himself if he can. If he has a superweapon spell or insane combat ability, he should be using it. Plus, his minions are obvious. You don't get "suddenly, an army of orcs rides over the horizon and overruns your city".
You can see him coming and trying to take over the world. Because doing so should be obvious and take a long time.

This ought to scale downwards into the smaller operations, even most adventures really.

EDIT:
And, if he uses the superweapon spell, then you have no campaign; you need a reason for him to use it by not using it, or you really have no campaign.

It's like saying that the BBEG was trying to kill everyone in a city by fomenting riots and so on. And then when the adventurers bust into his lair, they get swarmed by shadows and die.
So why didn't he use those shadows in the first place? He ought to have, even if it meant he would win. Therefore, he should not have those shadows.

lol

Well I guess my rather opaque point is that just because some one is big and bad and evil and powerful, doesn't mean he's stupid. Stupid villains die rather quickly. The smart ones learn to be subtle.

Everybody has this view of the Devil as some red guy with horns and fangs, batwings and a tail who's going to stick you with his pitchfork and and subject you to horrors unspeakable. In reality he would be damned good looking and the nicest guy you ever met...he would be your best friend...and tempt you into damning your self.

Wow...this really got OT lol.

Theodoriph
2011-04-10, 11:37 PM
Secret info is fine for the most part. The divination school exists for a reason.


I mean seriously, if the PCs are dumb enough to just charge into a Wizard's lair without gathering any sort of intel on the wizard, then let them have it to teach them a lesson. That doesn't mean you need to TPK them, but have the Wizard defeat them and toss them in his dungeon to work as his slaves. They can then manufacture their escape and much fun can be had.

Now if the PCs did try to gather info on the Wizard but their divinations were blocked, or they were just stonewalled, then you should probably have the Red Dragon say that these puny manlings are beneath his attention and that the Wizard should deal with them (the good old CRPG design). The Dragon can then leave. If the PCs try to stop the Dragon from leaving when they're clearly outmatched...well, give them a fiery hell :P If the DM blocked them from gathering intel and is going to make them fight a heavily over CRed battle when they had no chance to prepare or learn about it, well, he's acting like a nogoodnick.

jseah
2011-04-10, 11:55 PM
Well I guess my rather opaque point is that just because some one is big and bad and evil and powerful, doesn't mean he's stupid. Stupid villains die rather quickly. The smart ones learn to be subtle.
<...>
Wow...this really got OT lol.
Sorry, yes, it's getting off topic.

Subtle is good. But sometimes when you have a big stick, it's better to swing. Especially when that stick is small enough that no one will see it until it hits them in the back, lethally hopefully.

Of course, being stupid about it is going to get him killed.

halfdragon62
2011-04-15, 07:53 PM
In a different thread of mine we were discussing a hypothetical situation where the player's performed their attack on the enemy in a manner that would make it much more difficult than the DM intended. In the example it was attacking an evil wizard while he is in the process of negotiating an alliance with a red dragon, and thus having to fight them both at once.

I asked whether or not the DM should simply hand wave the dragon away because the fight is now "over CRed", or should continue with the game as written. Personally I think it is cheating on the part of the DM, even though in this case it is cheating in the player's favor, and would be just as bad as having a red dragon appear out of nowhere if the player's got the drop on the evil wizard and would otherwise make short work of him.

Anyway, the following response was posted:



This post, frankly, blew my mind, and I felt it was worthy of starting its own topic rather than muddying up my existing thread. In all my years of DMing I have never heard that it was unfair of a DM to have secrets which negatively affect the players.

Most games have investigation rules in them, for example D&D has the search and gather information skills. I have both ran and played in numerous games, as well as reading published modules, where player investigation and insight was a part of the game, and some of them which had totally unpredictable surprises and plot twists. I never had a problem with it, or even considered that it could be a problem unless (like anything) executed poorly.

However, Jamin makes it seem like this is always a horrible thing worthy of immediate DM booting. Am I totally out to lunch on this, have I completely missed some rule of gaming so basic that it has never once been pointed out to me in 20 years?

I wrote out a lengthy rebuttal to his post in the other thread if anyone wants to read it:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10718333&postcount=69
Although it does not deal entirely with the question at hand, and is a bit of a rant.

Both arguments have a valid basis. That's the short of it. Deciding whether or not to keep a secret from (or "cheat") your players comes down to what type of campaign you are running and your own personal discretion. Overall, its best not to surprise the players too often, especially when it might result in a total TPK (an occasional surprise is good if used in moderation, and keeps the players on their toes). Using your example of the party jumping the wizard while in negotiation with a dragon, I would use a "compromise" route: eg. Instead of the wizard negotiating with a mighty wyrm, have him negotiating with one of the wyrm's children, who's acting as an ambassador. This still surprises the players and provides a relatively difficult challenge, but would not be as deadly as having to deal with the wizard and the parent wyrm at the same time.

Roderick_BR
2011-04-15, 11:07 PM
Hmm. Just my 2 CPs. Yes, the DM need to keep secrets, otherwise he should give the whole plot before the game started.
Now, using the OP's example, how was a red dragon a secret? He was in the same room as the wizard? Kinda hard to not notice. Just say that as the warrior nears the wizard's place, he suddenly spots the huge fiery magical monster standing right there. Walking in wouldn't be a good idea.
The dragon is not there? Maybe the wizard had sent some Send, or even a scroll/letter and was waiting a response. The DM can just keep it as a plot hook, to add the dragon later, as he'll want to deal with the "pesky warrior" that killed his would-be associate. Let's say some mercs try to attack the warrior, and later he finds they were hired by the dragon to gauge his strength before trying a more direct attack.

What sort of information the player receives from the DM will affect a plot in a different way.