Keeping players in the Dark or not?

[jedipotter]

So this came up over the weekend...again.

As far as running a game of D&D I see only two ways to do it: You tell the players everything or you tell them nothing. And yes I could telling a player even one thing to be 'everything'.

My two types work out like:

1.Once the game starts the Player has no more information then the Character does. Simple.

2.The Player knows everything. As a Player in the Game, the DM-Player will tell them things. Then it is up to the Player to pretend that the Character does not know anything the Player might have been told.

Now, most people I play with are Type Ones. They are more then happy to just keep playing, and more role-playing, no matter what happens. The Type Twos are playing the more roll playing game. And they are fine if things happen, as long as it is in ''their version and interpretation of the rules'', but they must know about the things.


It comes up a lot during a game, to tell or not to tell. So how does everyone else do it? When you DM, do you tell your players things about the game? Do you keep everything secret? As a player are you fine with a secret? As a player do you want to know game information and then role play in the game like you don't know?

And the big one: As a player, can you play D&D without knowing exactly what is going on? Can you just accept ''wood won't burn here'' without being told the game rule reason for it?

[SciChronic]

when I DM I disclose any information that a normal person of that world would know such as basic layout of the area, surrounding kingdoms, capital and big cities, maybe a rumor or two concerning politics, etc. If he players have any questions that i think the PC would know i will answer them to avoid gamey situations like asking the bartender "who is the king here?" "what's an X?" since as a person living in that world you should know these things.

Otherwise, what their character doesn't know, the player doesn't know, and its up to their characters to investigate.

[Callin]

when I DM I disclose any information that a normal person of that world would know such as basic layout of the area, surrounding kingdoms, capital and big cities, maybe a rumor or two concerning politics, etc. If he players have any questions that i think the PC would know i will answer them to avoid gamey situations like asking the bartender "who is the king here?" "what's an X?" since as a person living in that world you should know these things.

Otherwise, what their character doesn't know, the player doesn't know, and its up to their characters to investigate.

To fill in any gaps that might show up I also have my characters make Knowledge checks to figure something out.

[Tim Proctor]

When a campaign starts I publish most all the information, with a scaled version of the information that the player knows, similar to how the lore segments for PRCs are setup. As well during game when players roll for knowledge checks and such (which is whenever we encounter a subject), those knowledge checks are added to the repertoire of knowledge the character has. I started using that system because the ambiguity about what a character knows and what a player knows is where I've seen issues.

[Rijan_Sai]

You say you believe that telling the player(s) "even one thing to be 'everything'" The problem, I believe, is that it is the DM's job to tell the players what their characters should know.

There's a big difference between
"You have entered the the door to the north. You are now by yourself, standing in a dark room. The pungent stench of mildew emanates from the wet dungeon walls..."

and

"You have entered the door to the north. You are now by yourself, standing in a dark 10'x15' room. The pungent stench of mildew emanates from the wet dungeon walls. There is an elf standing 6 feet in front of you, and several ogres slowly creeping in through the door on the far side of the room."

The first is general information that the character should (or at least can) know. The other the player might know from the context, but the DM shouldn't just offer it up, and the player should not act on this (possible)knowledge that the character wouldn't know...

...
...
I think I was going somewhere with that...

[mindwarper10]

It depends on what I am running with. If I need the suspense I say nothing. Like my current story, it's a multiple part campaign with a couple of plot twists that are too easy to give away by giving out ANY free information. I mean the one I am about to run is BASED off an old game I ran, and I told one of the players about the OLD one that I ran with a different group, but it's very different in that while it comes from the same thought strain, it doesn't have a "2+2=4" concept that he or any of the players could put together, not even the original group could without delving into my mind...something I don't think is going to happen...or hope won't...yikes.
The most I give them is "Chapter 2: the tides of war" because I split my events into chapters, and the title doesn't give anything away (usually they knew the war was coming, or the wording is related to something other than an actual war)

However if it's lighter on the mystery or drama, then I don't care what my players know, and usually it's better the players know what's going on to keep the ball rolling. These tend to be more linear missions or campaigns, probably reused often by me and has no Major story line. There is no "OMG! so the princess was actually a demon trying to use us to conquer the world?" or "Wait...we killed the good guy?" or anything like that.

[evisiron]

It depends on the group and how long we've played together. For example, with a new group I might let slip that there were several routes through an encounter with different obstacles, which they may have figured out through investigation. This lets them know their actions have consequences, that their choices matter and they have achieved something such as avoiding a horrible fate through it thinking it through.
After a few campaigns, I'll hold that information back since they know that's how my campaigns work without me telling them.

[jedipotter]

I'm not so much talking about World Information, like who lives in the White Tower, I'm talking more about Game Rule Information.

If the characters enter an area effect by a magic effect, do you tell the players? Like ''Ok, your in Dorna now, so no fly spells will work'' or even ''last night a foe cast 'lost forever' on the group'', so as your character's travel you will stay lost. But remember your character's don't know that and have to roll....

Or even game things like: At 2pm the group (insanely) attacks a couple of humans in gold robes (for no real reason) and slaughters them and robs them, but gets away clean. Then at 5pm the group finds ''all the city gates locked and the town guard on lockdown''. Now at 5pm, they just want to leave town and get to Black Water Swamp where the adventure is. They, naturally, have forgotten the crime of murder they comited just hours ago. So the players are upset that they ''can't continue the adventure'' because ''the dumb DM locked all the gates''. So, as Dm, do you tell the players ''well two brothers, sons of the city lord were brutality slaughtered this afternoon and that is why the guards are on lockdown'' and let them know why things are as they are?

[Callin]

Nope. Not unless the character finds out in game. Thats the metagame and that is the realm of the DM.

[nedz]

If your players like working things out for themselves then you have to go with 1. If your players don't care for mystery, suspense, problem solving, etc. then go with 2; I don't know many groups like this however.


When a campaign starts I publish most all the information, with a scaled version of the information that the player knows, similar to how the lore segments for PRCs are setup. As well during game when players roll for knowledge checks and such (which is whenever we encounter a subject), those knowledge checks are added to the repertoire of knowledge the character has. I started using that system because the ambiguity about what a character knows and what a player knows is where I've seen issues.

I like this in principle, in practice though you can end up with a large info dump which nobody reads. I find that it is better to give out this stuff in more managed quantities when something comes up.

[KillianHawkeye]

If the characters enter an area effect by a magic effect, do you tell the players? Like ''Ok, your in Dorna now, so no fly spells will work'' or even ''last night a foe cast 'lost forever' on the group'', so as your character's travel you will stay lost. But remember your character's don't know that and have to roll....

Or even game things like: At 2pm the group (insanely) attacks a couple of humans in gold robes (for no real reason) and slaughters them and robs them, but gets away clean. Then at 5pm the group finds ''all the city gates locked and the town guard on lockdown''. Now at 5pm, they just want to leave town and get to Black Water Swamp where the adventure is. They, naturally, have forgotten the crime of murder they comited just hours ago. So the players are upset that they ''can't continue the adventure'' because ''the dumb DM locked all the gates''. So, as Dm, do you tell the players ''well two brothers, sons of the city lord were brutality slaughtered this afternoon and that is why the guards are on lockdown'' and let them know why things are as they are?

There is no reason I would tell the players something that their characters have no way of knowing about. Fly spells don't work in this city? It might be a commonly known fact, but otherwise they don't know unless they try it. Killed somebody while sleepwalking? There should probably be some clues when they wake up, like blood on their clothes, but they'll have to work to discover the truth. When they try to leave town, they find the gates are locked and the guards are searching for a murderer. The party will probably try to help find the guilty person unless they already suspect it was them.

Honestly, IMO telling about things that the characters shouldn't know like that does nothing but ruin the story and I would oppose any DM who did it that way. I will explain something in greater detail after the fact, but not while it is still a factor in the story of the adventure. Really, I am always looking for ways to discourage metagaming, not to encourage it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So, as Dm, do you tell the players ''well two brothers, sons of the city lord were brutality slaughtered this afternoon and that is why the guards are on lockdown'' and let them know why things are as they are?
Yes-- I don't consider it metagame at all to remind players about things that their characters did recently and thus should remember, but that they as people did hours, days, or even weeks ago.

[Lanson]

''well two brothers, sons of the city lord were brutality slaughtered this afternoon and that is why the guards are on lockdown''

Oh... OH!!! Oh my...

Well then, if one of your players asks a guard why they cannot leave, they should be informed of the situation, and possibly asked to assist in the investigation should they be heroes of renown. However, if the players never ask, prod them to ask npc's questions instead of the all-knowing floating voice in the world. ( I usually poke fun at my DM when he starts divulging too much info to us OOC when our characters do stuff) And if characters are asking questions to npc's just remember how much an npc or guard would know about the events, and give them that.

[TuggyNE]

So this came up over the weekend...again.

As far as running a game of D&D I see only two ways to do it: You tell the players everything or you tell them nothing. And yes I could telling a player even one thing to be 'everything'.

My two types work out like:

1.Once the game starts the Player has no more information then the Character does. Simple.

2.The Player knows everything. As a Player in the Game, the DM-Player will tell them things. Then it is up to the Player to pretend that the Character does not know anything the Player might have been told.

From what I can tell from various other discussions, there's actually (at least?) three types. The third (or zeroth) is "the Player has less information than the Character does", and it is characterized by keeping secret houserules of consequences for perfectly common things, not informing players of even general feelings like "your mind tingles unpleasantly, as though someone attempted a spell on you", Players playing as cleverly and cautiously as they can to find out these things or guess at them, and so on. This zeroth type is often presented as though it's the first type.

I suppose there's actually another type, one in which Players have a little bit of extra information that their characters could discover fairly easily to a first approximation, but that saves significant table time. For example, giving monster AC; after a few swings, and even to some extent simply by watching movement and positioning, any warrior worthy of the name knows about how skilled an enemy is at avoiding blows unless that enemy makes a strong and deliberate effort to mask their abilities. Call this Type Ia.

In practice, I strongly suspect the majority of games involve Type Ia, and nearly all the replies so far fit that pattern; they're not Type I purists, never mind Type 0, but Type II seems silly and unnecessary to them. In fact, I'm not sure I know of any Type II games, other than maybe the silliest of one-shots. Anyone seen one of those in the wild?

[nedz]

I'm not so much talking about World Information, like who lives in the White Tower, I'm talking more about Game Rule Information.

You moved the goal posts whilst I wasn't looking.

House rules should be published up front, and stealth nerfs avoided.

You should only keep players in the dark to avoid metagaming or spoilers really.

[jedipotter]

In practice, I strongly suspect the majority of games involve Type Ia, and nearly all the replies so far fit that pattern; they're not Type I purists, never mind Type 0, but Type II seems silly and unnecessary to them. In fact, I'm not sure I know of any Type II games, other than maybe the silliest of one-shots. Anyone seen one of those in the wild?

I know two local Type Two DM's, and maybe a dozen players. The Dm-player tells the other players everything. So the players always know what is going on, but (try) to act as if the character does not know.

[TuggyNE]

I know two local Type Two DM's, and maybe a dozen players. The Dm-player tells the other players everything. So the players always know what is going on, but (try) to act as if the character does not know.

Hmm. Lengthier description? What does an average encounter look like for them, combat or non-combat? How do their plans work, and what general sorts of plots are used?

[nedz]

I know two local Type Two DM's, and maybe a dozen players. The Dm-player tells the other players everything. So the players always know what is going on, but (try) to act as if the character does not know.

I've seen this in Thespian orientated LARP, after all everyone knows how Shakespeare's plays turn out, just never in tabletop.

[jedipotter]

Hmm. Lengthier description? What does an average encounter look like for them, combat or non-combat? How do their plans work, and what general sorts of plots are used?

Well, it is more the feeling that the are playing a game like Monopoly or Risk then a role playing game. Then then to roll play and ignore fluff.

The DM will say things like ''ok, you guys ready to fight the trolls in the troll cave?" or like ''once you guys get to Blackwater Swamp the black dragon will attack''. For things like spells or feats they just come right out and say ''the spell cast on your character was sleep'' or ''the orc used the feat silent spell so you did not hear them spellcasting'' or ''the thug has improved trip, so..".

So again, the DM-Player tells all the other Players everything, and then the Players (sort of) pretend their characters don't know. I know the one DM does it for something like ''it proves to the players that the DM is following the rules too.'' So he say like ''the goblins drunk potions of barkskin+2'', I guess so the players don't think ''oh he just increased the goblins ac's by dm cheating'' or something.

[TuggyNE]

Well, it is more the feeling that the are playing a game like Monopoly or Risk then a role playing game. Then then to roll play and ignore fluff.

The DM will say things like ''ok, you guys ready to fight the trolls in the troll cave?" or like ''once you guys get to Blackwater Swamp the black dragon will attack''. For things like spells or feats they just come right out and say ''the spell cast on your character was sleep'' or ''the orc used the feat silent spell so you did not hear them spellcasting'' or ''the thug has improved trip, so..".

So again, the DM-Player tells all the other Players everything, and then the Players (sort of) pretend their characters don't know. I know the one DM does it for something like ''it proves to the players that the DM is following the rules too.'' So he say like ''the goblins drunk potions of barkskin+2'', I guess so the players don't think ''oh he just increased the goblins ac's by dm cheating'' or something.

Huh, that's weird. I guess there's always another baffling subset of gaming groups to discover.

[Fouredged Sword]

Another subset along the spectrum is DM's who play for metadrama.

They roll a d20 in the open and smile. They look their players in the eye and chuckle 'That's interesting'

The DM attempts to deliberately provide OOC knowledge to the group, but to do so in a manner to set the mood, ramp up paranoia, or otherwise change the metaenviorment to change the player behavior at the table.