Players Knowing the Adventure?

[jedipotter]

So do players like to know the whole adventure, and then just play the role of a character in that adventure that does not know? Or do players like to be 100% in the dark and have no idea what might happen? Or some strange hybred between the two?

I see five ways to do this:

1.The Player Knows Nothing The player sits down to play not knowing anything about the adventure at all. So all reactions are real and true as the player reacts at the same time/way as the character does.

2.Player Knows Something Vague This is where the player tells the DM that they would like something added to the game, but give no details. The player will often just states something short like ''lets fight some drow'' or ''give my character an evil twin brother''.

3.The Player Knows a Little This is where the player knows the basic outlines and basic details, but not everything.

4.The Player Knows a Lot This is where the player is a Co-DM and helped create the adventure, so they know almost everything about it.

5.The Player Knows All This would be where the player creates and controls everything, and the DM just runs the game for the player.


I'm pretty much a firm 1., and even when I do 2. it is well hidden and not easy to see.

Now the two things that come up are Major Events and Changing Characters, for example:

Major Event: The characters will be caught and sold into slavery.
1. The players know nothing
2. The players know ''characters will be slaves''
3. The players work out with the DM how ''not bad slavery'' will be for the characters, like how easy it will be to escape and find all their stuff.
4. The players make half the adventure, and know how it will turn out.
5. The players know the whole adventure and know how it will turn out.

Changing Characters A character wants to find a powerful magic item
1. Knows nothing
2. Knows they will find the item
3. Knows they will find the idea and get the item.
4. Knows they will find and get the item and all the details of how.
5. The item is given to the character.

So how do you do it?

[Renen]

The 2nd one is best. Allows atleast character creation to be thought out, because if you'd know to make a character who's back story is "became a slave". Also works for potential changes. Players should know if something about their character might change (Like back story. And I mean change, not evolve.)

It also helps to give the players what they like. If the players say "we wanna play a lighthearted game, and not deal with zombies and stuff", and you then go "By the way, the world is ending, Atropus is coming, zombies are everywhere and most likely most of the planet will die". The players will be SERIOUSLY turned off from the game.

[A Tad Insane]

I like the second one myself. It allows the players to contribute to what they want ("Hey, let's have an adventure that's not in a cave" has been uttered more than once in my group) without bogging everyone down too much in minmaxing ("we're playing sunless citadel? Who wants to be the cleric?")

[Fallenreality]

As a player I generally enjoy somewhere around 2 or 3. Mainly for the reasons Renen stated.

I do slightly disagree with your example of number 3 for the major event. In the slavery circumstance I would actually want to know a little about it so that I can build my background to work with the world. That might just be me personally as I would love trying to escape the slavery scenario.

In general 2 works very well as it lets your players know what to expect and if they will enjoy it, but it also prevents metagaming. Going back to your slavery scenario, the player would then be able to build a very good unarmed fighter of some sort to make their lives easier and not require gear. Not many people I play with would do that, but I know my group of friends isn't exactly representative of everyone who plays DnD.

I do usually try to find out more of the situation from my character's point of view using knowledge checks once I'm in the game however. That's one of the first things my group did when we woke up, as we all had different knowledge skills and pooled together information about the history of the world. (To be fair we woke up as undead, in a wasteland that was a former human kingdom)

tldr: I enjoy having basic knowledge going in just so that I don't make a character completely disjointed with how serious the world is. Once in game I will use my character's skills to figure out what he might have known that I wasn't given in the first place.

[Hiro Quester]

As a player, I hate spoilers. But subtle hints are good, and enable players to prepare somewhat, without being too warned.

In our latest adventure, DM told us we'd be using core books plus Stormwrack. So he effectively suggested it will involve at least some nautical elements. That's enough to prepare somewhat, without getting any spoilers.

I prepared by giving my gnome druid character a backstory that involves being found at 10 years old after a shipwreck, and growing up as a cabin boy on a privateer's ship.

I took one rank in profession:sailor at first level. And have developed a couple of cross-class ranks in knowledge (geography).

This has helped make the adventure fun to play so far.

[yoshi67]

I like to know enough so my character fits with the story. For example, if the slavery thing was just an event that you expect to be a minor point in a much larger story, I would want to be surprised and have my character act like I would. However, if the entire adventure is built around being a slave, I would want to know so I don't show up with a ranger optimized for fighting on the back of a hippogriff AC, which would make little sense for a slave. Knowing just enough of the setting makes character creation easier and the game more fun when I feel like I fit in to the story.

Things like you are going to be in the mountains, or in a city, or on a ship, most of the adventure is something I want to know without giving away the story you have prepared.

If you want an open world, I like making a general suggestion and letting the DM handle the specifics of the adventure. "Today I feel like fighting a dragon" or "I'm going to walk around town and see if anyone needs help/is looking to hire someone" is a suggestion that I want the DM to take and create an encounter or adventure around.

[BWR]

Are we talking any given adventure or more general knowledge about a setting?
For adventures its nice if the players don't know everything, of course, but in some cases this is hard to avoid. If you want to run published adventures, sometimes the players know things about it. There is little point in running the Tomb of Horrors for a group of people who have memorized it, but if only one player knows much of anything about and keeps her mouth shut, it can still be fun.
Other times a player my be the focus or origin of an adventure and they will have to know some stuff about it, and their characters will too. Artificially making an adventure where the player knows little or nothing may very well end up not making sense according to established events in the game or the personality of the PC.

So in short, anything from 1-3 is fine by me. The game is collaborative and allowing players some input is often a good way to make a better story and a better game, and trusting your players not to use OOC information to ruin the adventure is a must for a good table.

I've ventured into 4-5 territory to good effect. My gf and I have been playing a one-on-one game for some 11 years now and have taken turns GMing it, and we talk about the characters and possible/probable developments all the time. It works great for us, but I think it would be very difficult to do this well for most other games,

[MrMercury]

Personally, I like knowing absolutely nothing. It means that reactions are authentic and there is not out of character knowledge that a wizard player like me could capitalize on in preparing spells. The campaign generally moves to stage 2 fairly quickly. Also the DM does take into considerations what we want, but we may or may not get it.

[avr]

In my gaming group the GM needs to make some sort of pitch for the campaign before people will agree to start the game. Probably around 3 on that scale.

For events or adventures within the game, it depends. In the game I'm currently running the players told me that while they were OK running from the dragon in the setup to the campaign they were going to come back and kill her some day. OK, I can work with that.

Later on one player asked for a particular item to show up as part of his story about multiclassing. I agreed and it did.

On the other hand, in the same game they didn't know that there was an army coming at one point. They had to abandon a set of plans they'd been working on. Aside from there being a guy present who was trying to hire mercenaries for a suicide job there wasn't much in the way of warning.

So, it depends on the situation.

[ngilop]

I like 3, but 2 will do.

I will walk away from a game that is 1 or 5.

how am I supposed to create a character with out ANY idea on what the backstory of the adventure. let alone any info on what system we are using or ya know I guess why play a game about cooperateive story telling and having fun with your fiends when the guy in charge (the DM) is like 'SHUT UP NO!!!!! you do not get any info on anything at all about what all of us are about to play. I, as a player, has no idea what system, what character creation methond ( point start, die roll method etc etc) I am suppose to use, the backstory of the game, be nice to know if we are going to reclaim the ancient stronghold fo the dwarves, then iw ould not have said 'can I be a goblin druid?" then I have no idea if certain races, classes, skills, feats etc etc are BANNED cuz yeha as a player I guess that im just that much of a worthless peon that I am not privy to such information.

then when I am completely never allowed to know anything, hwo would I even play the game once, or what even game we are using, sicne ya know that not allowed for me as a player to know.

why would anybody subject themselves to that i'll never understand


5 is just as bad, if I wanted to DM id just DM, I wanna be the player, ya know.

4 is kinda meh, but I'll do it under one or two circumstance such as its the guys first time DMing and he needs some assistance.

again I want to be a player as a player not a DM as a player.

[Kol Korran]

I think as a DM, I'm mostly number 2. The players will know that "It's an epic "save the world"/ "A grim mystery set in country X/ will mainly feature evil outsiders" kind of stuff. My players can also make certain requests, pertaining to roleplay "I'de liek to roleplay my relationship with a mentor/ I'd like my character to come under a lot of stress/ I want her to be hunted down/ I wish to try and build this and that organization". That sort of thing.

Other than that- they don't have a clue.

[kardar233]

I'm going to disagree with most of the other people here and say that I much prefer the higher values on that scale. In fact, it's been some time since I played an adventure with anything below rank 3 on your scale.

This is for several reasons. First, we focus a lot on the developmental arc of the character, and we delve pretty deep into their personal lives, past traumas and the like. Because of that, our characters' reactions to things can often be unpredictable; for example, in a recent game my Sorceress, Caheira Raneth, was watching a witch huntress being tortured by her prospective victims, and Caheira was content to leave her to her fate in retaliation for the lives she'd taken. However, her torturers decided to cripple the witch huntress by cutting off her hands, which provoked a powerful response from Caheira, as she had been repeatedly maimed and healed by her mother as a child. Because of that, Caheira intervened and healed the witch huntress out of horror and pity, changing the adventure's path fairly significantly. Not being much of an improviser, my DM doesn't much like having to figure out a different arc for the adventure because of an unexpected turn, so talking about possible responses and such prevents him having to come up with stuff on the fly as often.

Second, we play merry havoc with our characters' lives and emotions, so care needs to be taken for things to work out well. During this campaign we had a pivotal scene where a couple of Caheira's allies, including another PC by the name of Vaulknar Lionbreaker, saw some of the horrendous treatment Caheira was subjected to by her mother. Our DM and I carefully tailored that scene to get the maximum reaction out of Vaulknar by playing on Vaulknar's fears, primarily of losing his ability to fight and of not being able to protect those who matter to him. However, we had to be very careful with Caheira; certain actions her mother could have taken in that scene would have broken her near-irreparably and rendered her unsuitable for doing pretty much anything except gibbering for the near future. If we'd gone into that scene more blindly we likely would have stumbled onto some of those land mines and then we would either have had to retcon those actions or have Caheira act considerably out of character to get her functional again in a reasonable time frame.

Another example of this was an adventure a bit later than that, where Caheira realized a mage was scrying on them and tracked the scrying to a besieged town on the coast. She and Vaulknar were going to infiltrate the tower and neutralize the mage by any means necessary; however, the DM had mentioned to me that the mage in the tower was the mentor of a slave that Caheira had freed and was working on rehabilitating. Because Caheira refuses to lie to the person in question, the issue of what to be done with the mage had to be handled very carefully, as if she had been too cruel with him that freed slave would have been disgusted when Caheira told her of her actions, causing an irreparable rift between them. That would also have sunk a number of plans we'd made earlier concerning that slave, so we worked together to figure out a way that Caheira could deal with the mage without causing that rift and forcing us to scrap all those plans.

Because of these reasons, our campaigns almost universally reside in the 4 to 5 range on your scale. Adventures that deal less with our character's personal lives and idiosyncrasies can run at a 3, or even very rarely a 2, but while those are nice for a quick dose of the ol' ultraviolence, we don't find them all that fulfilling and they rarely end up being on our list of adventures worth remembering.

The idea that powers this style is that while the DM is the architect of the world and those who inhabit it, as a player, I am the architect of my character's personal story, and so the DM needs to confer with me on matters that significantly affect my character's personal story. On the flipside, I have a responsibility to talk to the DM about parts of my character's personal story that significantly affect the world, such as the importance and role of my character's mother in worldly politics. This is even more important when I am playing a high-tier character such as Caheira, as she has the ability to reshape parts of the world to her whim and so I need to talk to the DM about any actions I may have Caheira take that may prove world-shaking.

[Boci]

Arguably characters are never going to know nothing about the adventure. The starting level itself tells them something, as will character creation guidelines and or ban-lists. As for how much I like to know as a player, that depends on how much I know about the world it is set in. If its an established setting I'll make do with 2 (I do like to know what kind of game I'm playing, grimdark, noblebright, something in between?), if its a homebrew setting without too much info I'd prefer 3.

Also:


So do players like to know the whole adventure, and then just play the role of a character in that adventure that does not know? Or do players like to be 100% in the dark and have no idea what might happen? Or some strange hybred between the two?

Nice to see you keeping an open mind there.

[skypse]

I don't think you need to know everything about the campaign's future to have a solid and complete character background. I believe I am standing somewhere in option 2 myself. It's like using a Player's Guide on a published AP. You know what you need to know about the region, the town, it's protagonists, the land around, but you don't get any information about the campaign's details. You only get what you need to know for your character's creation. You know the name of the baker or the innkeeper, but you have no idea how and if they will affect your story in the future.

You can rule that one cannot be "the daughter of the innkeeper" because then you would have to deal with players wanting to get allounce from their daddy and screw with game economy, but it's ok if you want to have been working in his inn as a child before you started your training in swordfighting.

On another note, since I know the campaign you are talking about because I posted interest as a player yesterday, I think the guys there want to know the route they will follow as a storyline but I don't think they want to know exact details on if they will find their relic or how they will be enlsaved/freed. I maybe wrong, but that's the impression I got.

[Boci]

On another note, since I know the campaign you are talking about because I posted interest as a player yesterday, I think the guys there want to know the route they will follow as a storyline but I don't think they want to know exact details on if they will find their relic or how they will be enlsaved/freed. I maybe wrong, but that's the impression I got.

Oh and this thread was started with a single game and specific players in mind and not as a general comparison of varying DM styles? Farewell threads potential to be productive and not pointless argumentative snark, we barely knew thee.

[skypse]

Oh and this thread was started with a single game and specific players in mind and not as a general comparison of varying DM styles? Farewell threads potential to be productive and not pointless argumentative snark, we barely knew thee.

Ok now THAT'S counterproductive... It is only logical for questions to come in mind when you fall into an unknown situation. OP never asked what he should do in the specific campaign. He used it as an example to start a conversation regarding varying DM styles as his first post indicates. The fact that I happened to know which campaign stimulated those questions is completely irrelevant and shouldn't affect your attitude towards the whole conversation at all.

After all, conversations exist so that people can take in proccessable information that will be used in various situations in their lives for one reason or another. Philosophical talks and beliefs are useless unless they are used and practiced.

[Boci]

Ok now THAT'S counterproductive... It is only logical for questions to come in mind when you fall into an unknown situation. OP never asked what he should do in the specific campaign. He used it as an example to start a conversation regarding varying DM styles as his first post indicates. The fact that I happened to know which campaign stimulated those questions is completely irrelevant and shouldn't affect your attitude towards the whole conversation at all.

Yes it should, the motivation for a discussion is relevant. There's nothing wrong with it, just say so. "So I had an disagreement with some players and based on that..." Also don't throw 3 of the 5 options you present under the banner "Some strange hybrid". Especially when the other two options are the one you use (number 1), and a straw man no one in all likelihood is ever going to use outside of a special one shot (number 5).

[skypse]

Yes it should, the motivation for a discussion is relevant. There's nothing wrong with it, just say so. "So I had an disagreement with some players and based on that..." Also don't throw 3 of the 5 options you present under the banner "Some strange hybrid". Especially when the other two options are the one you use (number 1), and a straw man no one in all likelihood is ever going to use outside of a special one shot (number 5).

So you say that someone cannot have second thoughts on a decision he makes or he shouldn't want to see if his decisions are correct according to the public view? Or even just have some other suggestions than the one he thought of? He may believe that option 1 is the best for him, but since he DOES aknowledge the rest of the options out there and he is willing to discuss about them what's the problem?

[Threadnaught]

2 and 3 are preferable for the Campaign Setting and if the characters have any experience involving the adventure itself beforehand.

How much a player knows about a given adventure depends on how far they are into the quest. If they haven't noticed the plot hook or they haven't been given one, it's a 1. Once they hear about the quest, they're at 2, it'll be as vague as their willingness to research the adventure. If they delve into it, they're already invested and possibly even taking part in the adventure, so they get themselves stuck between 3 and 4. Never being a 5 unless they cheat.


I don't know what you mean about the Major Event. Beforehand, it's impossible for players to know their characters will be caught and sold into slavery, unless they cheat. This is a 1 before the encounter, then if they do get caught it becomes 2, with the potential to become 3 if the DM doesn't shut down all their options, or the players can think of a way out. Though, the way out should contain more methods than the one specific way the DM thought of.
Of course going by consensus on this site, the main vote would be 4. The DM creates the encounters and situations they plan for their players to experience, the players can either react to those situations, or throw a spanner in the works and create their own new situation which the DM has to react to. When everyone has the power to affect the game, it causes more dynamic and creative stories to form.

The last thing has nothing to do with changing characters, it is about players wanting cool stuff for their characters.
If a player wants something for their character, they will try to get it. So in answer to this question I say 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Depending on the item, where the PCs are and what resources they have available.

[Boci]

So you say that someone cannot have second thoughts on a decision he makes or he shouldn't want to see if his decisions are correct according to the public view?

No, and I'm not sure where are getting that from. The second sentence of my post you quoted saud "There's nothing wrong with it, just say so." I simply thing you should be open with why you are starting a topic.


Or even just have some other suggestions than the one he thought of? He may believe that option 1 is the best for him, but since he DOES aknowledge the rest of the options out there and he is willing to discuss about them what's the problem?


Willingness to discuss comes across a lot better when the other options are acknowledge are not labeled as "strange hybrids". You are right, its good to lay out the various groups of thought including the ones you don't follow, but you do so neutrally, especially the ones you don't follow yourself.

[skypse]

No, and I'm not sure where are getting that from. The second sentence of my post you quoted saud "There's nothing wrong with it, just say so." I simply thing you should be open with why you are starting a topic.
That's the point. He starts the topic in order to gather information about a situation he ran into, but wants to use tha information as a general principle and not only for the specific situation. The specific one is just a stimulus and nothing more.




Willingness to discuss comes across a lot better when the other options are acknowledge are not labeled as "strange hybrids". You are right, its good to lay out the various groups of thought including the ones you don't follow, but you do so neutrally, especially the ones you don't follow yourself.

Imho, I don't think he was trying to be caustic or aggresive regarding the rest of the options. Especially since he practically asks for them. "Strange hybrids" is being used just as a two-word method to include everything in the between of two extremes.

[goto124]

How long can an adventure stay in 1 and 2 before the players tire of the lack of knowledge and want 3?

[Curmudgeon]

I always want to start in 1, and progress organically to 3 by operating in the game world.

[Boci]

That's the point. He starts the topic in order to gather information about a situation he ran into, but wants to use tha information as a general principle and not only for the specific situation. The specific one is just a stimulus and nothing more.

Humans very often do not work that way. In these discussions you lose nothing by being open.


Imho, I don't think he was trying to be caustic or aggresive regarding the rest of the options. Especially since he practically asks for them. "Strange hybrids" is being used just as a two-word method to include everything in the between of two extremes.

That would be "hybrids". The word strange in no way makes the phrase better at covering the in between.

[skypse]

How long can an adventure stay in 1 and 2 before the players tire of the lack of knowledge and want 3?
Depends on how good the adventure plot is. A boring plot will make the players ask for future details to see if it is worth their time.

I always want to start in 1, and progress organically to 3 by operating in the game world.
As long as this 3 means that the players have gained in-game information only due to their RP and without outside help then I agree.

Humans very often do not work that way. In these discussions you lose nothing by being open.



That would be "hybrids". The word strange in no way makes the phrase better at covering the in between.

1) Agreed. However in the specific one, it doesn't make any actual difference.
2) Potato Potato (this doesn't really work in writen form does it? :D )

[Boci]

Depends on how good the adventure plot is. A boring plot will make the players ask for future details to see if it is worth their time.

Which raise a potential problem: whilst method 1 is arguably the most organic (assuming of course the setting and adventure are treated as separate things, so players can start already knowing stuff about the former), you are still asking players to trust you. Reasonable enough for friends, harder sell for strangers playing with you for the first time.


As long as this 3 means that the players have gained in-game information only due to their RP and without outside help then I agree.

Information about the adventure, or the setting? Because if its the latter it means he can only use a single setting once with any PC.


2) Potato Potato (this doesn't really work in writen form does it? :D )

No. Calling an idea strange is never a compliment. It is at best condescending.

[skypse]

Which raise a potential problem: whilst method 1 is arguably the most organic (assuming of course the setting and adventure are treated as separate things, so players can start already knowing stuff about the former), you are still asking players to trust you. Reasonable enough for friends, harder sell for strangers playing with you for the first time.
Well d&d is build on a mutual respect and trust between DM and players. Of course you can argue that there are times that one side fails the other, but as a general principle, that shouldn't be happening. When I started playing PF my DM was a complete stranger to me and yet I completely trusted his judgement on things and I have to say that I really enjoyed his adventure. On his side, he was talkative and available to discuss anything that troubled me and gave me a pretty good idea of what's happening around my character in his custom setting without giving me any information on the adventure itself.




Information about the adventure, or the setting? Because if its the latter it means he can only use a single setting once with any PC.

Gained information about the adventure. It is ok for PCs to know that the BBEG's name is Tom, as long as Jerry told them that once he lost his fight and got interogated.


No. Calling an idea strange is never a compliment. It is at best condescending.

Still potato, potato. Don't be so defensive. If one wants to insult your opinions, the last thing he will do is ask for them.

[Boci]

Well d&d is build on a mutual respect and trust between DM and players. Of course you can argue that there are times that one side fails the other, but as a general principle, that shouldn't be happening. When I started playing PF my DM was a complete stranger to me and yet I completely trusted his judgement on things and I have to say that I really enjoyed his adventure. On his side, he was talkative and available to discuss anything that troubled me and gave me a pretty good idea of what's happening around my character in his custom setting without giving me any information on the adventure itself.

Not only is that anecdotal evidence, and therefor useless in the grand scheme of things (if you think anecdotal evidence is valid I've got several threads worth of counter points then), it also ignores that times are changing, especially with the rise in popularity of online games. Oh an if mutual trust is required between DM and player, can I reveal as much about my character as the DM does about their adventure?

Plus, what if there are 3 possibly games but I only have time for one? If all the DMs are using the first aproach I may as well pick a game out of the hat. Even basic information though would help me make a better choice.


Still potato, potato.

What a strange approach. (Did that sound neutral to you?)


If one wants to insult your opinions, the last thing he will do is ask for them.

No they would, its a debate tactic. It doesn't really work I find, but then I also find that rarely stops people.

[skypse]

Not only is that anecdotal evidence, and therefor useless in the grand scheme of things (if you think anecdotal evidence is valid I've got several threads worth of counter points then), it also ignores that times are changing, especially with the rise in popularity of online games. Oh an if mutual trust is required between DM and player, can I reveal as much about my character as the DM does about their adventure?

Plus, what if there are 3 possibly games but I only have time for one? If all the DMs are using the first aproach I may as well pick a game out of the hat. Even basic information though would help me make a better choice.
Well I find logical that a DM wants to see your character's sheet and have an idea of your character's background not to see if you are cheating or not, but also to be able to modify the campaign in terms of DCs and encounters according to the party's level regarding optimization and other mechanical stuff. I fail to see however how you will be benefited if you know that between town 1 and 2 you will be targeted by a group of thieves or that in dungeon 1 there will be a trap 20 feet left from the entrance that if someone with the right weight steps on it a secret door will open and you will find a treasure otherwise the floor will open and you will have dinner with Orkus.



What a strange approach. (Did that sound neutral to you?)

Well it surely prompts me to ask you why you find my approach strange and ask you to elaborate on it. I am not gonna get pissed or defensive against it however. I like conversing :D


No they would, its a debate tactic. It doesn't really work I find, but then I also find that rarely stops people.

Sorry but my diplomacy ranks don't cover knowledge over something like that. For me it's as simple as that:
Discussion=Speaker 1 says something, Speaker 2 says something relevant to speaker 1, Speaker 1 answers the forementioned point, repeat the whole situation in a non-offensive manner,????
Success!

[Boci]

Well I find logical that a DM wants to see your character's sheet and have an idea of your character's background not to see if you are cheating or not, but also to be able to modify the campaign in terms of DCs and encounters according to the party's level regarding optimization and other mechanical stuff. I fail to see however how you will be benefited if you know that between town 1 and 2 you will be targeted by a group of thieves or that in dungeon 1 there will be a trap 20 feet left from the entrance that if someone with the right weight steps on it a secret door will open and you will find a treasure otherwise the floor will open and you will have dinner with Orkus.

Those are really really specific details that would logically only come up at approach number 5 (the one I said no one would actually use because it is a strawman). Maybe 4 as well. There's a very big margin between "you know nothing" and "there's a needle trap with a modified poison set by the kobolds on this square here, 10ft before the secret doorway to the shrine".


Well it surely prompts me to ask you why you find my approach strange and ask you to elaborate on it. I am not gonna get pissed or defensive against it however. I like conversing :D

Jedipotter is free to elaborate on why it isn't belittling of him to call other opinions strange, maybe his explanation will allow me to see his words in a knew light, I'm just skeptical of the fact.


Sorry but my diplomacy ranks don't cover knowledge over something like that. For me it's as simple as that:
Discussion=Speaker 1 says something, Speaker 2 says something relevant to speaker 1, Speaker 1 answers the forementioned point, repeat the whole situation in a non-offensive manner,????
Success!

That is not how debates work as a general rule. People have vested interests in their opinions being the best and a productive sharing of ideas is simply one of the many reasons to start such a debate. The idea behind simultaneously asking for other opinions and insulting them is that you get to appear open minded whilst still placing your opinion above them, before they have even spoken it. Trust me, people do that.

[skypse]

Those are really really specific details that would logically only come up at approach number 5 (the one I said no one would actually use because it is a strawman). Maybe 4 as well. There's a very big margin between "you know nothing" and "there's a needle trap with a modified poison set by the kobolds on this square here, 10ft before the secret doorway to the shrine".
I personally wouldn't even want to know that we will go in a cobold infested dungeon. Knowing that a campaign involves underground puzzle-solving and fights is helpful cause I will not create the gilman I had in mind but other than that any info could even be considered a spoiler :D Now that it comes to mind, I believe that all a player NEEDS to know about an adventure are the so called "big 16" that I encountered in these forums. Asking for something more specific flavour-wise would be good or bad depending on the question.




That is not how debates work as a general rule. People have vested interests in their opinions being the best and a productive sharing of ideas is simply one of the many reasons to start such a debate. The idea behind simultaneously asking for other opinions and insulting them is that you get to appear open minded whilst still placing your opinion above them, before they have even spoken it. Trust me, people do that.

True but after all who would genuinely believe his opinion is invalid BEFORE getting other views or even his own opinion countered? It's not as dramatic as you present it. Or at least I don't find it so.

[Curmudgeon]

As long as this 3 means that the players have gained in-game information only due to their RP and without outside help then I agree.
Oh, I wouldn't be that dogmatic about it. If people have limited gaming time, I'm fine with a DM saying something like "OK, by now you'll have enough experience to know some basics about the setting. You can read <section from Eberron Campaign Setting> and <section from Races of Eberron> before the next game."

[goto124]

Reasonable enough for friends, harder sell for strangers playing with you for the first time.

Point there. So start at 1 for friends and progress to 3, start at 2/3 for strangers and progress to 3.

If you were selling your game to strangers, it's highly unlikely (not 100% impossible) that they'll be attracted to DMs saying 'looking for people to join me, no I won't tell you anything' in the first place. You'll have to say 'this is an undead campaign' or 'we'll be in a politics-heavy game', so that'll be 2 or 3.

[Boci]

I personally wouldn't even want to know that we will go in a cobold infested dungeon. Knowing that a campaign involves underground puzzle-solving and fights is helpful cause I will not create the gilman I had in mind but other than that any info could even be considered a spoiler :D Now that it comes to mind, I believe that all a player NEEDS to know about an adventure are the so called "big 16" that I encountered in these forums. Asking for something more specific flavour-wise would be good or bad depending on the question.

Still more than nothing.


True but after all who would genuinely believe his opinion is invalid BEFORE getting other views or even his own opinion countered? It's not as dramatic as you present it. Or at least I don't find it so.

Its not about pretending you don't believe your own opinions, its about being respectful when you present those you don't agree with.

[Vhaidara]

Everything has it's place
1. This only works for an amnesiac campaign

2. This is generally one of the better areas: The players can build their character to be relevant (no seafaring pirate characters accidentally starting in the desert), while maintaining realistic reactions

3. I have a friend who specifically requests to play at this level, even if everyone else is lower. This is because he tends to play characters who fundamentally think differently from him, and if you surprise him, you won't get his character's reaction, you'll get his. I've played with him in three campaigns, as well as GMing for him once. He is one of the best RPers I know, because he does this

4. This has some overlap with 5, and they are both more about world building. For example, I have a gnome bard who I based off of a character from Neverwinter Nights 2 (I had about 15 minutes to make a backstory). So, he was hunting the Wendersnaven, which, in NWN2, were something of a joke. However, as I looked at progression options, I found the Seeker of the Song PrC Refluffed to "Scion of the Wendersnaven", it fit my character perfectly, so I talked to the GM. We worked out where I would find an ancient artifact called the Wenderlute (A Legacy Item I got to design), and then he started dropping IC clues (I found a tome in a Beholder's library that had a hint of a thing in the north, which was a hint more than my character had ever had to go on before). I eventually left the party and picked up a new guy on my journey up north to find the lost relics of the Wendersnaven, and everyone ageed it was one of the better developed plots we had done.

5. This is a world building campaign. I'm actually in one right now, and it's going well. Except that there is no GM. Everyone is the GM. We all control our groups, or run NPCs for each other if needed. It let me play a different kind of character. In this case, I'm playing a LG Love Daevic from the Akashic Mysteries Playtest, and my Paramour (built in cohort) is a succubus. She is trying to corrupt my character, who is possessed (the Daevic fluff) by an incubus, while my character, who is still in control, is trying to redeem her.

[skypse]

Oh, I wouldn't be that dogmatic about it. If people have limited gaming time, I'm fine with a DM saying something like "OK, by now you'll have enough experience to know some basics about the setting. You can read <section from Eberron Campaign Setting> and <section from Races of Eberron> before the next game."


Point there. So start at 1 for friends and progress to 3, start at 2/3 for strangers and progress to 3.

If you were selling your game to strangers, it's highly unlikely (not 100% impossible) that they'll be attracted to DMs saying 'looking for people to join me, no I won't tell you anything' in the first place. You'll have to say 'this is an undead campaign' or 'we'll be in a politics-heavy game', so that'll be 2 or 3.

Sure. All of those however are background knowledge that each player needs in order to create his character and start playing. I never said anything opposed to this. However reading the Inner Sea Guide to check out Ameiko Kaijutsu's character sheet, is a bit too much. A player should know what his campaign will revolve around, without knowing any "deep" information about the campaign itself. More or less whatever is in a adventure path's Players Guide is enough for the players. Maybe some extra info can be given through a setting as Curmudgeon said, but still that information shouldn't have any vital for the plot parts.

In simpler words, I am down for a description of the adventure, but nothing that would spoil the plot itself.


EDIT: Also note that OP says that 2 involves players asking for plot stuff and not DM informing them on how the campaign goes. I take as a standard that the players are informed of the "big 16" in all 5 cases so they DO know where they are headed as a general idea.

[Boci]

EDIT: Also note that OP says that 2 involves players asking for plot stuff and not DM informing them on how the campaign goes. I take as a standard that the players are informed of the "big 16" in all 5 cases so they DO know where they are headed as a general idea.

But it doesn't say that. It says nothing. Not nothing beyond the basics, nothing. Wow, it almost like the OP wasn't written that well.

[Renen]

Starting knowing nothing is terrible.
Say I make a paladin focused on smiting undead. But then I find out there are no undead in the campaign. Not only are you are worse off from mechanical standpoint, but you gotta wonder HOW are you a paladin that specializes in undead killing if there are no undead.

I play alot on the forums (PbP) and very ofted DMs post something of the following:
1) Paragraph or two about the setting
2) Paragraph or two about any particular thing the PCs are (like being slaves)
3) Starting level, allowed sources, and such

So youd know that you start at lvl 4, as a gladiator in Eberron. But it hardly spoils anything...

[jedipotter]

5. This is a world building campaign. I'm actually in one right now, and it's going well. Except that there is no GM. Everyone is the GM.

And just think....I included #5 as a ''crazy extreme example'' that I thought ''No one would ever play D&D like this'' and it would just get ignored. Well....



EDIT: Also note that OP says that 2 involves players asking for plot stuff and not DM informing them on how the campaign goes. I take as a standard that the players are informed of the "big 16" in all 5 cases so they DO know where they are headed as a general idea.

I'm not a fan of the ''Big 16'', it's so annoying. I like ''make a character, lets play''. Though I do weed out players way before that.


But it doesn't say that. It says nothing. Not nothing beyond the basics, nothing. Wow, it almost like the OP wasn't written that well.

I don't write good. Writing is not my native form of communication.

And I do mean ''nothing'', check out my other thread.

[Renen]

And just think....I included #5 as a ''crazy extreme example'' that I thought ''No one would ever play D&D like this'' and it would just get ignored. Well....

Thats because you think DM is god, and players should listen and obey. That's not always the case, and if players are always kept in the dark/ignored/manipulated they will walk.

[jedipotter]

Thats because you think DM is god, and players should listen and obey. That's not always the case, and if players are always kept in the dark/ignored/manipulated they will walk.

Yes I do, and yes they do.

And there are other games with other DMs...or Co-Dms or even no DMs....

[Renen]

I think if players walk away from your games, that isnt a good thing. Perhaps switch from option 1 to 2?

[jedipotter]

I think if players walk away from your games, that isnt a good thing. Perhaps switch from option 1 to 2?

Nope. It is a good thing. You don't like my game, leave. It's one of the best ways to weed out players. There will always be ''Cartmans'' who say ''screw you guys I'm going home!'' and I just wave.

Players that have the right mindset stay, play, have fun, and come back. Players that walk away play Magic! over at Taco Bell or sit at home or something else(like drive by 25 times down the street and think we don't recognize his green gremlin with a Decpticon logo on the hood)

[Fallenreality]

Eh, I can see a tiny bit of where Jedi is coming from with this one. Even though I disagree with the GM is the god and everything he says goes thing. Everyone is entitled to a group that they will have fun with. If Jedi is looking to DM a session that the players know very little about, he doesn't have to change the game for the players that want to know all the details.

What I do disagree with is the player mindset thing. They can decide your game isn't for them and it's not an example of "being in the wrong mindset". They are just as welcome to find a game they are more comfortable in.

Everyone is allowed to find a game they will enjoy. If someone enjoys the DM rules, buckle up, surprise filled thing Jedi is offering to host, then good for them. But some people will have just as much fun in a 5 like Keledrath mentioned. I often have so many character ideas that a sandbox to try out their effectiveness would be great.

I personally enjoy a 2 as I mentioned earlier in the thread just for backstory purposes. A 1 is great for reactions and mystery but I don't want to make a character for something and then realize that I made a super serious character for a fun romp through Candyland or vice versa.

[Renen]

Well, since its been quite clearly established that a good number of people on these boards WOULD walk from your games, I guess we now know that Afroakuma (one of said people) likes Magic! and drives uselessly on the same road a few dozen times. As do I.

[jedipotter]

I guess we now know.

And Knowing is Half the Battle!! Da-Da-Da-Dum-Dum-Da-Dum!

[Renen]

Sigh... :yuk:

[Threadnaught]

I like ''make a character, lets play''. Though I do weed out players way before that.

Have you forgotten the distinction of "problem player" or do you mean exactly what you've written?


This thread's already been derailed, I just hope for an answer. A straight answer. To the exact question I asked.

[Vhaidara]

And just think....I included #5 as a ''crazy extreme example'' that I thought ''No one would ever play D&D like this'' and it would just get ignored. Well....

Like I said, this is a very specific game type that is advertised as not having a proper GM. Everyone is both GM and player, and it works because we respect each other. And before you say anything about saints, I'm doing this with literally 6-7 random people from the PbP section of these forums.

[Sam K]

On the original subject, I think all forms can be fine. I've had a couple of campaigns born out of a player idea, with the DM creating the game to accomodate that idea: in one solo Conan D20 campaign I played in, I specifically wanted to play a "mystic barbarian" type of character (a barbarian warrior with a hint of witch doctor) so the DM created a setting of tribal warfare and raiding in the Darfari lands. I wrote alot of the fluff for their religion, creating a pantheon of half-animal spirits, all with their own rites to appease them, and the DM used these heavily in my characters vision quests. Was great fun.

I do prefer that some information be shared in regards to what characters will work with what the DM is planning, and what will be available in the form of prestiege classes and equipment, to avoid frustration both for players and DM. Just like I feel it's only good form to give a DM a heads up if I'm planning to make a optimized T1 caster (so that the DM can either prepare for that power level, or let me know that it will probably negatively effect the campaign, so I can re-consider my choice of character), I think it's just common courtesy for a DM to let me know that build or concept I'm considering may not work very well in that campaign.

[atemu1234]

My players are usually around 4-5, but sometimes as little as 1, and I'm most comfortable around a 3.

Edit: Sigh. I didn't realize there was a second page. It seems this thread has gone from JP saying, "I play this way, how do you play?" to "I play this way, I'm doing it right, everyone who does it any other way is wrong/bad."

[Telonius]

I usually prefer 2 to 3. In my personal opinion, the players should have some sort of a baseline idea of how the game-world works. You need that in order to even build a character that makes any kind of sense. For example, if you're in a setting that regularly hunts down and burns any Necromancer, that's going to affect your character's backstory (and psychology, relationships, opinions, how easily you trust people...) if you want to make a Necromancer. A Half-Orc would have a very different outlook (not to mention different opportunities) if he's in a place that typically despises Half-Orcs, or if he's in a more race-equal setting. There might be local laws and customs that "everybody" in-game would know about; if "everybody" knows it, the players should too.

Option 1 (coming in completely cold) would make most sense if you're in a particular sort of game - usually one that's set in (or at least starts out in) the "real world" or something close to it.

[Dgrin]

Sigh... :smallsigh:
Hey guys, what do you think about avoiding turning any thread started by JP into "You're an awful GM, Sithsnape. Obey our call and join us, or be banished into oblivion!"

I think it's already established that JP plays D&D differently.
Some people are roleplayers - they play their role in the game. Others are rollplayers - they play the game by the rolls. And jedipotter is ruleplayer - he plays to rule the game.
We play like we play, he plays like he plays, and never the twain shall meet

EDIT: Speaking on topic, I prefer option 2: GM may discourage players from certain builds and backstories, they know a little about the world around them but not more than a few hints about the plot

[Faily]

Preferably somewhere between 2 & 3.

Some settings require a bit more setting-knowledge than others (Rokugan/Legend of the Five Rings is *very* heavy on it's setting and its accepted social behaviour). Some are very much more plug-and-play and allows more leeway for players who don't know the setting, though I still think players at least should know if they will be in Forgotten Realms, Eberron or Ravenloft before making their characters.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Guys, please avoid turning the thread into an argument on views or playing styles unrelated to the thread's topic. Try to stick to the original topic of the thread.

[sakuuya]

This isn't quite what the OP was asking about, but I was once in the super-uncomfortable position of having read a published adventure my DM wanted to run. I let her know, of course, but she really wanted to run it, so I made an impetuous character who bumbled through all the puzzles and stuff. As far as I know, my party-mates never realized that I had any foreknowledge, but it was still not a terribly fun situation to be in.

[OldTrees1]

To get back to the topic, Me and my players share a complex opinion to the question.

Before the game that we want to know just enough that we will know that it will be enjoyable and know that we will make characters that fit the game.

We are curious (and usually play curious characters) and thus seek to learn more about the game during the game.

As a result of a trusting Player-DM relationship where the DM understands the players's desires and tendencies:

I use Level 1 for recurring players(ones I know well) and Level 2 for new players(ones I am learning about) during construction of the campaign and during character generation. I can get away with Level 1 for the recurring players since I know that I designed the campaign to fit the kind of characters they would want to make.

Immediately upon play I give a summary of all the introductory character knowledge the characters would have that the players did not. Loading the map so to speak. Since I run sandbox campaigns, this would qualify as between Levels 2 and 3. Likewise I remind the players that I am here to work with them. If ____ would be a neat addition to the campaign then I will find a way to populate ____ into the campaign somewhere that makes sense (Kinda like your example for Level 2).

Since it is a sandbox campaign, part of the system depends on the players making meaningful decisions. So during play the players naturally gain more information so that they can continue to make meaningful decisions at Level 3.


I have experienced Level 4 but I thought of that more as Co-DMing with a DMPC rather than being a player with Level 4 knowledge. (Specifically I followed the rules for a good DMPC: Support the players and let them shine) I enjoyed it but mostly because I was helping/teaching a new DM with skills that complemented mine(Fluff DM + Crunch DM = better campaign?).

[YossarianLives]

I have never done anything but #1. Two is probably better but the DMs I play with never really give out any information.

[dascarletm]

I think they all can work. Ive done most of these methods



1.The Player Knows Nothing The player sits down to play not knowing anything about the adventure at all. So all reactions are real and true as the player reacts at the same time/way as the character does.


I did an amnesia campaign with two good friends of mine. It worked out well, in this one no one knew anything, they didn't even have character sheets in front of them. However, a year before I had asked them about what "super powers" would they always wished they had, and started each character as a psionic character based around that.

They would describe what they wanted to do, and I would roll everything and tell them how it turned out. It was really fun, and they enjoyed it.



2.Player Knows Something Vague This is where the player tells the DM that they would like something added to the game, but give no details. The player will often just states something short like ''lets fight some drow'' or ''give my character an evil twin brother''.


This is my groups usual mode of operation. "So guys I was thinking of doing a campaign revolving around X, and doing Y."

"Cool, I've had this idea for a Z. He might just fit."

Enjoyment ensues.



3.The Player Knows a Little This is where the player knows the basic outlines and basic details, but not everything.


I've not actually done this much information. This volume of out of game knowledge, such as an outline doesn't work in our games. We tend not to follow rails though, so even if we got outlined bullet-points I wouldn't be surprised if we never saw them.



4.The Player Knows a Lot This is where the player is a Co-DM and helped create the adventure, so they know almost everything about it.


I have friends who do this. Usually two of them like to co-build campaigns. It's interesting when Player A knows everything about what the game will entail. However these games tend to be more focused on combat simulation or the strategy aspect of the game.

I participated in a Rokugan-esqe setting in which it was very similar to Mount and Blade or Total War on tabletop.



5.The Player Knows All This would be where the player creates and controls everything, and the DM just runs the game for the player.


This to me would be strange. I've never done this method, but I have heard about it being done. Not my cup of tea, but to each his own.:smallbiggrin:

[torrasque666]

{scrubbed}

I'm a fan of #2.

[Ssalarn]

So do players like to know the whole adventure, and then just play the role of a character in that adventure that does not know? Or do players like to be 100% in the dark and have no idea what might happen? Or some strange hybred between the two?

I see five ways to do this:

1.The Player Knows Nothing The player sits down to play not knowing anything about the adventure at all. So all reactions are real and true as the player reacts at the same time/way as the character does.

2.Player Knows Something Vague This is where the player tells the DM that they would like something added to the game, but give no details. The player will often just states something short like ''lets fight some drow'' or ''give my character an evil twin brother''.

3.The Player Knows a Little This is where the player knows the basic outlines and basic details, but not everything.

4.The Player Knows a Lot This is where the player is a Co-DM and helped create the adventure, so they know almost everything about it.

5.The Player Knows All This would be where the player creates and controls everything, and the DM just runs the game for the player.

***
So how do you do it?

I use the Player Guides for the Paizo APs as a good example of how much information a player should have (and in fact, for the Iron Gods campaign we just started I had everyone download and read through a copy of the Player's Guide). Generally, the player's character should have some basic information about the world they live in, the recent publicly known events surrounding the scenario, and any information that might make sense as a result of traits they took that implicitly or explicitly tie them to the scenario. Outside of that, I'm pretty firmly in the option 1 camp; I'm big on player agency, so if they want to include something like the evil twin mentioned in option B I'll let them write information related to that into their character background from an in-character perspective, but how/when/if that information will become relevant is totally up to me, and I generally won't let them know what/if I'm planning with it.

[mashlagoo1982]

My players typically start around 2 or 3 (though in a larger group I will have someone at 4 to help co-DM).

From that point they build up to 4 or 5.
I do make it a point when necessary to tell players where their character knowledge ends.

I will often recap some points as to where things may have gone different (assuming that adventure is completed).

This kinda acts as a payoff for the players actions (Good thing we had the rogue pick the locks on those doors instead of breaking them down... otherwise we would have the entire swarm of zombies making a beeline on our position...)

[Boci]

I don't write good. Writing is not my native form of communication.

And I do mean ''nothing'', check out my other thread.

Like this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?390587-%28Pathfinder%29Underdark-horror-campaign

You are giving minimal information here.

[jedipotter]

Edit: Sigh. I didn't realize there was a second page. It seems this thread has gone from JP saying, "I play this way, how do you play?" to "I play this way, I'm doing it right, everyone who does it any other way is wrong/bad."

I must have missed that post....


Sigh... :smallsigh:
Hey guys, what do you think about avoiding turning any thread started by JP into "You're an awful GM, Sithsnape. Obey our call and join us, or be banished into oblivion!"


''One of us, One of us, One of us''

My question was ''how do others do this'', and that is it. I wondered, so I asked.

[Boci]

''One of us, One of us, One of us''

My question was ''how do others do this'', and that is it. I wondered, so I asked.

Okay, next time try maybe omitting the "strange" tag for several options that are not the ones you use. It doesn't start the discussion on a good foot. Also, what do you mean by nothing, because you gave some details for your most recent underdark game.

[dascarletm]

Okay, next time try maybe omitting the "strange" tag for several options that are not the ones you use. It doesn't start the discussion on a good foot. Also, what do you mean by nothing, because you gave some details for your most recent underdark game.

Strange isn't derogatory. Strange is subjective. If jedipotter doesn't use those methods then they are most accurately described as strange.

[Deadline]

Strange isn't derogatory. Strange is subjective. If jedipotter doesn't use those methods then they are most accurately described as strange.

There is a history on these boards with the OP using words that mean one thing to describe an entirely different thing. And with insulting everyone who doesn't follow a similar play-style. So the reaction should come as no surprise.

That said, I think the reaction here was an overreaction, given the OP's responses in-thread.

I've taken a shine to the campaign style of working with the players to decide on a genre and basic thematic elements we want in a game, then building the campaign based on their backgrounds. Does Tom want to be a knight of the Order of the Gilded Lily? Great! Now I've got a knightly organization (described by Tom) to use in the campaign! It literally can't ruin my plot or adventure, because I haven't created it yet.

After that, there is a "character interview" where we discuss what their character would do in certain situations, and that gives a great feel for both the character, and the background elements that are defining for them.

So in a sense, the players have built the world, and much of the campaign. There is still plenty of room for intrigue and mystery without scooby-doo style hackneyed plots (unless your players want that, of course).

[Anxe]

My group does #1 or #2. We've even had the start as slaves example under #1. That worked out as we were recently captured and our gear was all nearby.

Often we do #2 for adventures. The basic idea is given, but nothing else. Occasionally I'll hint at the difficulty level if its too high fo them, but my group has proven they can overcome or run away from pretty much everything I throw at them.

We do a lot more cooperation for world creation than adventure creation. Dawn of Worlds has been a great help for that.

[Renen]

Deadline brings up a good point. Since jedipotter refuses to work with players, and have them request things, what about things that have specific requirements? Like joining an order/group/cult, or traveling to a specific location, or finding another member of the class to "initiate" you?
What about gods? If i know nothing about the campaign, can I still make a cleric of Pelor, since said god might not exist?

[OldTrees1]

There is a history on these boards with the OP using words that mean one thing to describe an entirely different thing. And with insulting everyone who doesn't follow a similar play-style. So the reaction should come as no surprise.

True. Although I would have expected the average forumer to have a positive reaction to "strange" since most of us probably came from a geeky culture and most subcultures embrace their deviation from the norm. My brother and I complement each other with terms like "Weird", "Crazy", or "Insane".

[Boci]

Strange isn't derogatory. Strange is subjective. If jedipotter doesn't use those methods then they are most accurately described as strange.

What a strange approach you have there. (Did that sound neutral?)

Its pretty bad manners to refer to an idea as strange simply because you do not agree with them. It is strange to me that some people think we are secretly being controlled by shape shifting reptiles. It is not strange that some people do not optimize their characters, despite the fact that I always do.


True. Although I would have expected the average forumer to have a positive reaction to "strange" since most of us probably came from a geeky culture and most subcultures embrace their deviation from the norm. My brother and I complement each other with terms like "Weird", "Crazy", or "Insane".

You and your brother know each other. Would you use those compliments for a stranger?

[OldTrees1]

What a strange approach you have there. (Did that sound neutral?)

Its pretty bad manners to refer to an idea as strange simply because you do not agree with them. It is strange to me that some people think we are secretly being controlled by shape shifting reptiles. It is not strange that some people do not optimize their characters, despite the fact that I always do.



You and your brother know each other. Would you use those compliments for a stranger?

Strangely yes "What a strange approach you have there." does sound neutral to my ears. (Well it sounds like interested yet skeptical neutral which is a few steps up from neutral)

I would drop "Insane" when talking to strangers. I would add context to "Weird" and "Crazy" probably in the form of a "Weird :)". But I would actually feel more comfortable using "Strange" with a stranger.

I would of course also recognize that my responses and the responses I can predict are not universal. So while offense would not be expected, I would be prepared to correct any unintended offense if I were notified of causing it.

[Boci]

Strangely yes "What a strange approach you have there." does sound neutral to my ears. (Well it sounds like interested yet skeptical neutral which is a few steps up from neutral)

I would drop "Insane" when talking to strangers. I would add context to "Weird" and "Crazy" probably in the form of a "Weird :)". But I would actually feel more comfortable using "Strange" with a stranger.

Wow, where I come from the latter would be considered rude (and cutely pointing out that similarity in word structure would not get you far) and "what a strange approach you have there" is a veiled insult 98% of the time.

[OldTrees1]

Wow, where I come from the latter would be considered rude (and cutely pointing out that similarity in word structure would not get you far) and "what a strange approach you have there" is a veiled insult 98% of the time.

I am curious, where is that? I am from Minnosota where "That's different"/"That was different" is a common way of stating dislike. (But I freely admit that most of my culturing came from the geeky subcultures I am a part of)

Another question: Does "Strange." followed by a question sound better or worse than "what a strange approach you have there"?

[Boci]

I am curious, where is that? I am from Minnosota where "That's different"/"That was different" is a common way of stating dislike.

Another question: Does "Strange." followed by a question sound better or worse than "what a strange approach you have there"?

South-East England and Hungary. If I had to guess I'd say the reason behind it is that we are a conformist culture that in the not too recent history (and arguably to this day) killed people for not fitting in. So you have to be careful when you suggest something deviates from the norm.

Strange. followed by a question is probably better, but there are still more appropriate ways to word it.

[dascarletm]

There is a history on these boards with the OP using words that mean one thing to describe an entirely different thing. And with insulting everyone who doesn't follow a similar play-style. So the reaction should come as no surprise.

That said, I think the reaction here was an overreaction, given the OP's responses in-thread.


I think it would be healthy if people would forget that baggage and take these things fresh. Especially since it is the new year, and I hear that is all the rage.

Isn't that part of a song or something?:smallwink:


What a strange approach you have there. (Did that sound neutral?)

Its pretty bad manners to refer to an idea as strange simply because you do not agree with them. It is strange to me that some people think we are secretly being controlled by shape shifting reptiles. It is not strange that some people do not optimize their characters, despite the fact that I always do.

Yes actually it did, because it is. I read that as you informing me that you find my approach strange. It is foreign to you. It is not how you would go about it normally. If anything I would find it as a sort of comment, unless you were to put an inflection verbally which alluded to disdain. That however is true of all things. "You're cool," can be made insulting if spoken in such a way.

That said written language should be taken in context. How the paragraph containing this word of hot contention doesn't read that way. If anything it reads humorous or non-significant.

EDIT:

Ah cultural differences. Makes it all pretty moot. That being said, here in California calling something strange isn't insulting. At least not where I'm based. It is used synonymously with interesting.

[OldTrees1]

South-East England and Hungary. If I had to guess I'd say the reason behind it is that we are a conformist culture that in the not too recent history (and arguably to this day) killed people for not fitting in. So you have to be careful when you suggest something deviates from the norm.

Makes sense. Thanks for sharing.

[jedipotter]

Okay, next time try maybe omitting the "strange" tag for several options that are not the ones you use. It doesn't start the discussion on a good foot. Also, what do you mean by nothing, because you gave some details for your most recent underdark game.

So what if I think something is strange?


Well, group games give me problems. Everyone is so, so set on the ''DM tell me'' that I have to say something. I would like to say ''make a normal base line core character you'd like to play'', but people can't handle that. So I toss out the ''big 16'' smoke and mirrors that says ''make a normal base line core character'', and it's like I parted the sea.

But then a PbP is not a normal game. And it's not live. My style is for live games, where things happen in seconds, not hours or days.

And I have to post things like ''it's dark in the Underdark'' as some players don't understand that.

[Svata]

Jedi, this may be a shock, but different people have different ideas of what a "normal, baseline, core character" is. If you detail what you mean by it, people have an easier time comprehending what it is you meant. And I doubt you've had to tell anyone that its dark in the underdark.

[jedipotter]

Deadline brings up a good point. Since jedipotter refuses to work with players, and have them request things, what about things that have specific requirements? Like joining an order/group/cult, or traveling to a specific location, or finding another member of the class to "initiate" you?
What about gods? If i know nothing about the campaign, can I still make a cleric of Pelor, since said god might not exist?

You join a group in game, what is so hard about that?

I have always used the Forgotten Realms, so players can pick from the gods listed there. Or they can ask about gods before the game starts during character creation.

I never do the ''Very special campaign of the Week'' idea, mine is one big never ending campaign. I really don't get the ''special campaign idea'', like where the DM says ''wow, it would be cool to do Veggie Tales in D&D and makes up some ''Veggie'' rules. And then gets some players to play the game for a couple weeks until they defeat the evil Blender. And then move on to something else.



Jedi, this may be a shock, but different people have different ideas of what a "normal, baseline core character" is. If you detail what you mean by it, people have an easier time comprehending what it is you meant. And I doubt you've had to tell anyonthat its dark in the underdark.

I know! I think normal is ''human fighter with a sword'' or ''elven wizard with a spellbook'' and other think it is ''Myorthoi half-Dalpminer factium hybrid warswordbladesage with guns''.

The horror of the ''Underdark is dark'' is all too sadly real.

[jedipotter]

South-East England and Hungary. If I had to guess I'd say the reason behind it is that we are a conformist culture that in the not too recent history (and arguably to this day) killed people for not fitting in. So you have to be careful when you suggest something deviates from the norm.

Strange. followed by a question is probably better, but there are still more appropriate ways to word it.

Cultural differences are amazing.

See around here in the Rust Belt, ''strange'' is not all that negative. The same way ''weird'' is not all that negative. And we say ''Pepsi'', or ''pop'' if we must. And we call them ''little lobsters'' in our rivers ''crayfish''. And we drive on ''highways''. Big, thick fried potato wedges are called ''Jo-Jo's''. And long oval shaped sanddwitches are called ''subs'' or ''heros'' or ''hogies'' and we have lots of Mr.Hero fast food restaurants.

And Hungray? My grand ma was from Hungry! Yum, good food! She used to make yummy polichinka and goulash and strudels.

[Renen]

You join a group in game, what is so hard about that?

I have always used the Forgotten Realms, so players can pick from the gods listed there. Or they can ask about gods before the game starts during character creation.

I never do the ''Very special campaign of the Week'' idea, mine is one big never ending campaign. I really don't get the ''special campaign idea'', like where the DM says ''wow, it would be cool to do Veggie Tales in D&D and makes up some ''Veggie'' rules. And then gets some players to play the game for a couple weeks until they defeat the evil Blender. And then move on to something else.

What? What?
First of all, if you do it in a minimalistic way, I (personally me) dont know where you run your campaigns. You just told me, but this would no longer be "player knows nothing).

And my MAIN point was: What about classes and other things that have a fluff requirement? I might wanna play a spellguard of the silvery moon for example. But how do I become one if im not allowed to tell you as the DM that theres this order that I wanna join?

[SMWallace]

I like to start with a little information, and when I've decided on what I'm going to play, I like to know everything my character would know. Like, if I'm going to be a slaver, I should know the big people in the slave trade. If I'm going to be an elite templar serving a well-off general, I'd like to know how the military structure works, how I work within it, and what non-military advantages I can abuse for having status. If I'm part of a crime syndicate, I don't want to not recognize any of the important people. Those sorts of things. If my character should know it before the game begins, I'd like to know it before the game begins, because I can't exactly react in a way realistic to the character if I don't know things my character would obviously know.

I'm not against people who play with your #1, and in fact I'd be totally willing to try such a game, but I couldn't bring myself to play anything except a total amnesiac with no relevant backstory. If I'm coming into your world blind, then I want a character who is basically in the same boat, who wouldn't know or recognize anything about the world he lives in.

[Escapist]

I prefer to play a 3 but I will also play a 2.

I'd never play a 1 b/c there is just too much potential for it all to go wrong. If I had no idea what sort of game it would be and I made a combat focused barbarian warrior and it turned out to be a diplomacy heavy, intrigue based, courtly setting... well I don't think that would be much fun for me. Or anyone else for that matter as I would still play the character I created and that would probly wreck the game in the first session as Grogar inevitably reacts as a barbarian would when insulted, and raging at the royal ball and sending the setting to hell in a hand-basket. :tongue:

On the other hand a 3 lets me make a character that fits well in the world with his or her own personality and characteristics. For instance I once played a character who had never before encountered undead. He had no idea they could even exist. He thought they were just bogey-man stories. So when the party encountered them and he got hit with what I knew OOC to be a short debuff that actually wore off before combat ended I had him play it like he actually would have with his knowledge and the description he got of it IC. He freaked the **** out and refused to go on until the cleric threw him a remove curse despite that being mechanically suboptimal. On the other hand when something about the setting was unclear to me (b/c I don't live in D&D world and therefore had the wrong idea) the DM corrected me and informed me of the way things actually worked in setting (which my char would know) and I was able to adjust and make the decision that my character would which maintained immersion. I think it works much better this way and helps maintain a good suspension of disbelief and makes for a much more fun game.

I mean the only way I could see playing a 1 was if it was a supers game where I myself got transported into an alternate universe where everything was different and I suddenly had powers. Which could be fun in and of itself but I'd hate to be doing that every time or running into the barbarian scenario.

*Also while I've lurked for a while this is my first time posting here.

[Threadnaught]

So what if I think something is strange?

You say you think it's strange.

Somebody declaring that they think something is strange, is different to someone declaring it as strange.

[hifidelity2]

For me and the group I play with.

We have mainly used a mixture of No 1 and No 2

I will give them a general background to the world setting - - this is info that anyone in the world would know so a #2
For example “ You are in a small village on the main continent. There are X kingdoms and you live in Y. Things have been peaceful for all of your lives but recently the local Lord has started recruiting extra men and you are part of that.” I may even give them a very rough map with a lot of “unknowns / unexplored / Here be Dragons marked on it”


However about the actual adventures then its a 1 as most of the time its major campaigns that I run - although if in passing someone wants a certain type of adventure I will happy shoehorn one in

[Deophaun]

Jedi, if that thread Boci linked is any indication, you are at 2, maybe going on 3 from your second post there. I knew you weren't as bad as you say you are. :smallamused:

I try to avoid 1, simply because there are only so many games of D&D I can play, and I would rather not spend the time creating a character that a) won't fit the campaign and b) in a campaign where I'm not interested in the premise. Doesn't mean one is bad, it's just not for me.

I enjoy playing 2-4, while my campaigns tend to hover between 3 and 4. Although I'm a bit contradictory here. See, I like using character backstories and what my players are interested in to alter my campaign's seed, but I've noticed that if I tell them upfront that the campaign involves the MacGuffin of Awesome being stolen by the Emperor of Lameness, then suddenly all the backstories they give me focus on the MacGuffin of Awesome or the Emperor of Lameness, instead of bringing something new to the table. So, initially, I'm cagey on campaign details, starting between 1 and 2, until the first draft of the backstories are in. Then I talk with the players and we work on shaping both the campaign and character concepts to better match, and epicness ensues.

[Vhaidara]

Also, player input can lead to some interesting plot twists. To use an example from a game I'll be running with a fellow Playgrounder, FallenReality is playing a Dhampir in an upcoming campaign. He expressed an interest in eventually having his character die and return as a full vampire. So, there were 2 things I had to do
1. Find a usable vampire template (DSP Lords of the Night playtest is going to see use here)
2. Figure out how to turn him. I figured this out very quickly, and now can dangle it over him like he's a cat and I have a piece of string. Yes, I can be cruel. When it's funny.

[Barstro]

If I had no idea what sort of game it would be and I made a combat focused barbarian warrior and it turned out to be a diplomacy heavy, intrigue based, courtly setting... well I don't think that would be much fun for me. Or anyone else for that matter as I would still play the character I created and that would probly wreck the game in the first session as Grogar inevitably reacts as a barbarian would when insulted, and raging at the royal ball and sending the setting to hell in a hand-basket. :tongue:

Sure, it would take the right group, but I think that would be great. If your character stayed true to form, he would throw the beginning in an odd direction and then get killed or be abandoned by the party (end day one). Then you can make a new and better fitting character that "just so happens to" join the party the next session.

[Fallenreality]

2. Figure out how to turn him. I figured this out very quickly, and now can dangle it over him like he's a cat and I have a piece of string. Yes, I can be cruel. When it's funny.

Sigh... This is the case where I would prefer a 3 :P

[BWR]

Am I the only ony who interpreted 'adventure' as 'adventure' rather than 'campaign setting'? Because if we are talking about knowledge of campaign settings I'm solidly in 3 and up. Some games work well with 1 (newb level WoD, the Laundry, Kult, CoC) and you can make most work around 2. However, excepting those settings where you are based in something approximating the real world with extras the characters and players can learn how things really work through play, all settings I can think of off hand work better the more you know about them.

[Vhaidara]

Sigh... This is the case where I would prefer a 3 :P

That is a 3, bordering a 4. You know it will happen, I'm letting you have some control over when, you just don't know how I'm doing it.

[ComaVision]

And I have to post things like ''it's dark in the Underdark'' as some players don't understand that.

I read that thread JP, and this is an extremely misleading statement. What JP means to say is that he decided there is essentially no light in the Underdark at all, nevermind the slaves that need light to work or light for the purposes of making shops/stalls visible beyond 120 feet.

JP argued with his PBP group about how the Underdark had no light beyond a candle to the extent that the entire group fell apart before the game got started at all. Now, he's trying to get another group together for it.

Nobody was disputing that "it's dark in the Underdark".

[OldTrees1]

Am I the only ony who interpreted 'adventure' as 'adventure' rather than 'campaign setting'? Because if we are talking about knowledge of campaign settings I'm solidly in 3 and up. Some games work well with 1 (newb level WoD, the Laundry, Kult, CoC) and you can make most work around 2. However, excepting those settings where you are based in something approximating the real world with extras the characters and players can learn how things really work through play, all settings I can think of off hand work better the more you know about them.

You are not alone. That is why I qualified my post as being about a sandbox campaign rather than an adventure.

[jedipotter]

And my MAIN point was: What about classes and other things that have a fluff requirement? I might wanna play a spellguard of the silvery moon for example. But how do I become one if im not allowed to tell you as the DM that theres this order that I wanna join?

Well, again my answer is both ''I use the Forgotten Realms always'' and ''Ask the DM''. Your kinda stuck on character creation, and during character creation it's fine to ask things. It's rare a let a character join a group for ''free'' anyway.


Jedi, if that thread Boci linked is any indication, you are at 2, maybe going on 3 from your second post there. I knew you weren't as bad as you say you are. :smallamused:

Again, I'm talking about real life live games, not Play-by-Post. They are different. For example I would never, even role play with a <something here> or a <something else here> in real life. But online when they are miles away, maybe on the other side of the world, it does not matter.

And it's kinda sad that you think the incredibly tiny amount of information there is a ''2'' or a ''3''. As far as the role play side goes, the players know one detail: the name of the nearby town.



I try to avoid 1, simply because there are only so many games of D&D I can play, and I would rather not spend the time creating a character that a) won't fit the campaign and b) in a campaign where I'm not interested in the premise. Doesn't mean one is bad, it's just not for me.

See your putting too much on character creation and too much on ''very special campaigns''. But that is really a whole other post.

My set up, for a long term real life game, is more: Set in the Forgotten Realms year XXXX. Ask questions and the DM will help with character creation as needed. The Campaign is ''An Adventure'' with no direct character creation focus. So it's not an ''undead foe game with special undead rules just for this campagain, so make anti-undead characters'', it's ''this will be an adventure, anything can happen, so make whatever character you want to play.''

Each player makes a backstory, modified and approved by the DM. The player is free to make up all the names and such in the backstory, using the Realms as a setting. I just about auto approve small things like if the player wants to be from ''Voot, a small halfling village of 100 folks'', then 'pop' that little village now exists. But once the game starts the DM is in full control of everything, including anything in the backstory.

Players are free to read any Forgotten Realms book. I have tons of handouts with basic Realms knowledge. But that is close to it. Almost everything else comes from game play.

Though my game has the ''if you the player knows something, then your character knows it too metagame rule''. So Player Sally in January had a rogue character Zanna that adventured in Waterdeep for several mouths and met all sorts of NPCs. Until Zanna died in March. So then Player Sally makes Ava the necromancer in Waterdeep. So Ava has heard of every single NPC and event that happened to Zanna, though the character does not know any of the NPCs personally. The life of Zanna just represents the ''gossip'' that Ava knows. As DM I might add something like: the bard Vess to Ava's backstory and have her tell lots of stories about ''rogues of Waterdeep''. But Ava could, for example, walk into Jo-jo's fine cake shop, and ask him for some poison knowing the code word ''mint frosting''....but that is not 100% guaranteed to work as the game rolls on....

So a player can build up lots of game knowledge, if they pay attention, care, and take notes.

[Renen]

So what you are saying is that some classes are nearly impossible to join because game designers decided to make a "fluff requirement"? Cuz really, what are the chances YOU would let anyone have anything they ask for? (If you say there's a chance, I can show you a quote of yours from a previous recent thread where you basically say that asking you for something will only mean you will grantee the person ever sees it)

Now, I wonder how you would deal with a character who's occupation is "Spy" or "politician". You know... the guy that is supposed to know a lot of info?

Also, the following amuses me greatly:
Presenting like the one person who is kinda being positive to jedipotter:


I knew you weren't as bad as you say you are.

Jedipotter's reply?


And it's kinda sad that you think...

[OldTrees1]

So what you are saying is that some classes are nearly impossible to join because game designers decided to make a "fluff requirement"? Cuz really, what are the chances YOU would let anyone have anything they ask for? (If you say there's a chance, I can show you a quote of yours from a previous recent thread where you basically say that asking you for something will only mean you will grantee the person ever sees it)

Now, I wonder how you would deal with a character who's occupation is "Spy" or "politician". You know... the guy that is supposed to know a lot of info?

Are you trying to contribute to the discussion or are you trying to antagonize a fellow forumer? I ask because I can't tell.

[Renen]

I am trying to understand how significant damper on the amount of information available to players, and his reluctance to put requested elements into the game affects player choice.

[OldTrees1]

I am trying to understand how significant damper on the amount of information available to players, and his reluctance to put requested elements into the game affects player choice.

Oh, so it was merely poor word choice. Your word choice implied hostility(including but not exclusively how you asked a question, stated the negative answer you expected and the issued a hostile retort as if the question was merely an excuse for a fight). If you are honestly curious then perhaps ask like this instead:

"If I were a Wizard that wanted to become a Red Wizard, how would that look in one of your campaigns?"

Or if you prefer general examples over concrete examples:

"Would you please give a general explanation of how PCs would go about acquiring Prestige Classes in one of your campaigns?"

[Deophaun]

Again, I'm talking about real life live games, not Play-by-Post. They are different. For example I would never, even role play with a <something here> or a <something else here> in real life. But online when they are miles away, maybe on the other side of the world, it does not matter.
I really have no idea how to take that.

And it's kinda sad that you think the incredibly tiny amount of information there is a ''2'' or a ''3''. As far as the role play side goes, the players know one detail: the name of the nearby town.
It's a 2 because you've already given a set of skills that would be useful in the campaign, as well as a sense that the game will be much more hack and slash or maybe puzzle than social intrigue. That's in the first post, and you expand upon this as players ask questions. It starts creeping into 3 when you start inviting the players to establish the campaign's parameters in your second post, but it's solidly 2.

As I said, in this case at least, you aren't as rigid as you say you are.

See your putting too much on character creation and too much on ''very special campaigns''. But that is really a whole other post.
{scrubbed}

[jedipotter]

So what you are saying is that some classes are nearly impossible to join because game designers decided to make a "fluff requirement"? Cuz really, what are the chances YOU would let anyone have anything they ask for? (If you say there's a chance, I can show you a quote of yours from a previous recent thread where you basically say that asking you for something will only mean you will grantee the person ever sees it)

Yes. Though that is kinda the point. Some things are elite in a game world. The Spellguard is the best of the best, not just every random person that wants to join. And I have no problem saying ''no'' if a player just wants to dip into a class for a build.




Now, I wonder how you would deal with a character who's occupation is "Spy" or "politician". You know... the guy that is supposed to know a lot of info?


They are still culeless.


I am trying to understand how significant damper on the amount of information available to players, and his reluctance to put requested elements into the game affects player choice.

I find it no fun when players just know things about the setting, it's much more fun to role play them out.



Or if you prefer general examples over concrete examples:

"Would you please give a general explanation of how PCs would go about acquiring Prestige Classes in one of your campaigns?"

Some of them are generic, so you can just take them, like Arcane Archer. There is no ''arcane archer group'', though they might join other groups. Others you need to join the group and be in good standing with the group and support and be a good member of the group well before you can take the prestige class, So this is a lot of role play, of course. You can not ''dip'' into a group, get the special abilities you want, and then run off and adventure and ''just do whatever you want''.


And just to note: a ''Very Special Campaign'' is one that has Special rules. Like the DM might say ''this will be a pirate based D&D game, with the following special rules just for this game''. It's where the DM modifies the setting to match an wanted idea or style, but just for that game. Anything done to make the campaign, special, that is not like standard D&D, for just that campaign, for a short time.

[Fallenreality]

I do agree with the roleplay for certain prestige class bits.

Now, going back to the spy character. Would you allow this player to use knowledge skills once they are in game to try and remember something? Like say they are disguised while in an important party. Would you allow a Knowledge(Nobility) check to recognize someone important? Or even a Knowledge(Local) check to obey proper customs for the area?

[Renen]

Yes. Though that is kinda the point. Some things are elite in a game world. The Spellguard is the best of the best, not just every random person that wants to join. And I have no problem saying ''no'' if a player just wants to dip into a class for a build.
Ah. So dipping Incantrix is fine, because it has no fluff prerequisites, but once someone tries to dip a class that has fluff requirements, its a full stop to all engines?



They are still culeless.


Well thats just silly. A character thats supposed to be informed now knows less about the world than some farmer that never left home.



I find it no fun when players just know things about the setting, it's much more fun to role play them out.


But by telling them that you play in Forgotten realms, they DO know about the setting. What you are doing is saying that all the player's characters have Retrograde amnesia. Since they know NOTHING of the world they have grew up in.

{scrubbed}

[Fallenreality]

Ah. So dipping Incantrix is fine, because it has no fluff prerequisites, but once someone tries to dip a class that has fluff requirements, its a full stop to all engines?

I believe what he is saying is that he wants people to actually have in character reasons, not just optimizing reasons. Which is a perfectly reasonable approach.

With Incantrix I would actually want the character to show a study of metamagic. Make spellcraft checks at a library. Etc. I'm all for optimizing, but I do like people I'm playing with to make some attempts at roleplay.

I do agree with you that knowing something is Forgotten Realms probably brings you up to a 2. At least if you've done enough research on the setting.

[jedipotter]

I do agree with the roleplay for certain prestige class bits.

Now, going back to the spy character. Would you allow this player to use knowledge skills once they are in game to try and remember something? Like say they are disguised while in an important party. Would you allow a Knowledge(Nobility) check to recognize someone important? Or even a Knowledge(Local) check to obey proper customs for the area?

No. But ''my house rules for Knowledge checks'' would be a whole other post. I'd want the player to pay attention and learn things by playing the game, not having the player sit back and put on sun glasses an drop some dice on the table and say ''oh my character remembers whatever he needs to know.''

A player character will start knowing ''almost nothing'', but if they role play even a tiny bit, they will know tons of stuff after an hour of game time.


Ah. So dipping Incantrix is fine, because it has no fluff prerequisites, but once someone tries to dip a class that has fluff requirements, its a full stop to all engines?

Well, Incantrix is a special order, so no. I'm not going by the scribbles on the page, I go by what I decide. And it's not a ''full stop'', it's more ''your going to need to role play here''.


{scrubbed}

It's more like saying ''you don't know what store is on Lu street, who the owner is, what does he sell and what is the name of his daughter''

[dascarletm]

I hate when I forget what stores are located in my home town, or when I forget who the president is. :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

Some of them are generic, so you can just take them, like Arcane Archer. There is no ''arcane archer group'', though they might join other groups. Others you need to join the group and be in good standing with the group and support and be a good member of the group well before you can take the prestige class, So this is a lot of role play, of course. You can not ''dip'' into a group, get the special abilities you want, and then run off and adventure and ''just do whatever you want''.

So the norm for Prestige Classes exclusive to in campaign orders/groups. Quite reasonable to reserve member exclusive benefits to members only.


However on the main topic there seems to be a miscommunication. (correct me if I am wrong)

Characters living in Faerun have character knowledge about Faerun. During character creation / during play players can make use of their character's knowledge even if the player personally lacks that knowledge. However neither the character nor the player has any metagame information about the adventure (module or DM original). So a local of Waterdeep would still know where their local butcher's shop is when they become a PC but might not know about a butcher's shop in Amn or that they will encounter Red Wizards within the adventure.

Is that^ your position?

[jedipotter]

I hate when I forget what stores are located in my home town, or when I forget who the president is. :smalltongue:

I kinda like to forget....

But your missing the point. Sure you can name the president, but can you name all the Congresspeople from your home area? How about the local government? State Government? Federal Government?

And if your not in one of them small towns of like 200 people, then do you really know the names and locations of all 50-100 stores in your home town? Could you tell anything about each store, like it's prices or what they sell? How detailed can you get?

For example, the closest little outdoor mall to my house has three things: A Circle K, The Hungarian Strudel Shop, and Marco's Pizza. When I quiz players, everyone gets Cricle K and Marcos, as they go there.....but like 5 out of 6 forget that ''place between them, that they are not sure what it is''.

Most games just through out the light information ''your character knows where the Stumble Inn is'', but that is not even close to what the character should know about a place they have been too hundreds of times. So I just take the step back to ''knowing nothing''.

[Deophaun]

It's more like saying ''you don't know what store is on Lu street, who the owner is, what does he sell and what is the name of his daughter''
Darn. My character grew up on Lu street, her father ran the only store there, and she has no siblings.

Hopefully my character's name can be found in the closest dragon horde.

And if your not in one of them small towns of like 200 people, then do you really know the names and locations of all 50-100 stores in your home town? Could you tell anything about each store, like it's prices or what they sell? How detailed can you get?
If I bothered putting ranks in Knowledge (local) I could.

[Boci]

I kinda like to forget....

But your missing the point. Sure you can name the president, but can you name all the Congresspeople from your home area? How about the local government? State Government? Federal Government?

All? No. Some? Yes. How would you translate that into game mechanics and decide what your character does and doesn't know about their home area? Knowledge checks (you can make them untrained as long as the DC is 10). You are free to change that, but if you like roleplay and want your players to do that, it is probably a good idea to give an alternative method in its place.

[jedipotter]

Is that^ your position?

Just a couple minor changes:

Player Characters living in Faerun start with no character knowledge about Faerun. During character creation they can ask the DM questions or read a Realms book. During play players can make use of their player knowledge even if the character personally lacks that knowledge. However neither the character nor the player has any metagame information about the adventure (module or DM original). So a local of Waterdeep would not know where their local butcher's shop is when they become a PC and wouldnot know about a butcher's shop in Amn or that they will encounter Red Wizards within the adventure.



All? No. Some? Yes. How would you translate that into game mechanics and decide what your character does and doesn't know about their home area? Knowledge checks (you can make them untrained as long as the DC is 10). You are free to change that, but if you like roleplay and want your players to do that, it is probably a good idea to give an alternative method in its place.

My Knowledge house rules could fill a thread. But I would be over in the Homebrew Section. And everyone would just ignore it and it would get very few views and no comments......

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread closed for review.