To Tell or not to Tell?

[Gamer Girl]

Gamed with a new group today, as DM, and came up with this problem: Should the DM tell the players everything about the game, even and especially things the characters would not know.

I guess it's like asking that during the game are the 'character's and players' the same or is the player a detached person from the character.

I've always been a very, very secretive DM. The players know nothing about the game, except what they can figure out as characters.

The example that came up in the game was simple enough: They cast a lightning bolt on a vampire and it had no effect(vampire had a ring of energy resistance). So after that they all wanted to know 'why the lightning bolt did not work?'. Was I 'cheating'? They thought they should 'know' about things that might stop their magic, as it was not 'fair' that they wasted it.

I should note that the group is all 'battle characters' and it is a 'war vs the undead army' type adventure, so they have only a couple ranks in things like spellcraft. All their skills are in 'combat skills' like intimidate, spot and listen. So they have little option of discovering the effects in game(though that is their choice).

So should a DM tell everything? Do you lay all the 'rules' out on the table to the players 'know' your not cheating? Do the players agree to not use 'rule information?'

And if you do tell, how exact are you? Would you say 'the lightning bolt had no effect as the vampires minor ring of electric resistance absorbed it' or would you be more vague and just say 'the vampire's magic item absorbs the spell damage'? How vague can you get until your saying nothing 'the vampire has something that absorbed your damage'?

[LOTRfan]

I don't think so. Figuring it out is half the fun, and it is quite satisfying when they find out.

[Amnestic]

I'd be vague, but perhaps allow them a Spot check to notice the ring. Something like...

"The lightning bolt fizzles and dissipates, doing no noticeable damage to the vampire. [Character X] notices that a ring on the vampire's finger is shimmering more brightly than it was before."

Either that, or don't tell them anything and wait for them to loot the ring and identify it. I certainly wouldn't tell them what item the vampire was holding.

[Shademan]

No. you should not tell everything.
when a player says "But goblins does not work like that!" I say "exactly!" and leave it at that. they will have to find out these kind of things in character.
A good player does not say "the vampire was immune to my magic? he's cheating!" he says "the vampire was immune to my magic? lets find out why!"

[Erom]

I do consider it good form to tell people when their attack is not effective- AFTER they make the attack, not before. Like "You blast him with lightening and... nothing. He doesn't even flinch." but not like "Before you make that attack you should know this enemy has energy immunity."

[BRC]

Gamed with a new group today, as DM, and came up with this problem: Should the DM tell the players everything about the game, even and especially things the characters would not know.

I guess it's like asking that during the game are the 'character's and players' the same or is the player a detached person from the character.

I've always been a very, very secretive DM. The players know nothing about the game, except what they can figure out as characters.

The example that came up in the game was simple enough: They cast a lightning bolt on a vampire and it had no effect(vampire had a ring of energy resistance). So after that they all wanted to know 'why the lightning bolt did not work?'. Was I 'cheating'? They thought they should 'know' about things that might stop their magic, as it was not 'fair' that they wasted it.

I should note that the group is all 'battle characters' and it is a 'war vs the undead army' type adventure, so they have only a couple ranks in things like spellcraft. All their skills are in 'combat skills' like intimidate, spot and listen. So they have little option of discovering the effects in game(though that is their choice).

So should a DM tell everything? Do you lay all the 'rules' out on the table to the players 'know' your not cheating? Do the players agree to not use 'rule information?'

And if you do tell, how exact are you? Would you say 'the lightning bolt had no effect as the vampires minor ring of electric resistance absorbed it' or would you be more vague and just say 'the vampire's magic item absorbs the spell damage'? How vague can you get until your saying nothing 'the vampire has something that absorbed your damage'?

Unless you have a big problem with the players assuming you're cheating, I wouldn't worry about it. That said, you can let them figure it out without making spellcraft checks, they may not be able to identify a Ring of Electric Resistance just by looking at it, but they probably know such a thing exists, and if they see it in action it wouldn't be hard to figure it out. For example, they make a Spot check and notice the elaborate ring the Vampire is wearing. You could say the Lightning Bolt gets sucked into the ring, or just say that the vampire glows briefly and the lightning has no effect.

But in the end, most players I've run into don't expect to be told everything up front. In my groups the DM doesn't tell the PC's exactly what they're fighting until they figure it out themselves (Ghouls are just Gaunt Figures who smell of death until they start paralyzing people), we don't tell the players the monster's AC, or how many hit points they have.

After they beat the Vampire you can tell them what tricks you were using, but not during combat. They're characters wouldn't know that the Vamp was using a ring of electric resistance, so they don't get to know.

Plus, a DM can't really Cheat, they can abuse rule 0 , but they can't "Cheat".

[Mastikator]

In your example with the ring, to know and to act on that knowledge would be metagaming, which in my opinion is cheating.

All knowing everything does is allow and tempt the players into cheating. Which is not something I'd say they're entitled to.

[ClockShock]

Step 1: Tell your players that you're going to be fairly secretive and not explain every little thing for them.

This is a new group, they may be used to playing very differently. The change may well be very welcomed but they should know that this is how you're going to play.

Any other steps are just gravy - you could leave clues in descriptions (absorbed energy from a magical ring will probably look different from magic 'bouncing off') or give skill based checks for more knowledge.
Or play it light and let them work it out.

I'll repeat the important bit again: make sure your players know the kind of game you're running.
Otherwise yes, they may well feel like you're 'cheating'.

Edit: On the less important part the begins to address "how should it be done?" - there's nothing wrong with witholding this kind of information, but it is possibly for players to have knowledge without letting their characters know.
Strike the balance that works best.

[Doc Roc]

Sometimes for really hard fights, and I do mean really hard, I do let the players find out some things about the fight in character, generally through just random tidbits. The rough equivalent of Marathon's plot delivery system, I suppose.

[Firechanter]

In my group, it is common to only reveal in-game information that can be discerned by the characters. However, in the example scenario, even if the DM just said "the Lightning Bolt seems to have no effect on the Vampire", the players would immediately figure out that he has some kind of energy resistance, and not try Lightning attacks again.

Whether you describe that the lightning is absorbed by the ring or not depends on how you fluff out magic in your world. Either way, be consistent about it.

That said, _after_ a session / an adventure, all DMs I play with don't mind revealing any remaining "secret", provided it won't be relevant in future sessions. In this case, probably after the Vampire is destroyed, but if the PCs did it, they will loot the ring anyway. But if it wasn't a ring, but simply a spell he cast in advance, it doesn't harm to tell the players afterwards that he had a "Protection from Energy" spell up or whatever.

[Ranos]

I'd be vague, but perhaps allow them a Spot check to notice the ring. Something like...

"The lightning bolt fizzles and dissipates, doing no noticeable damage to the vampire. [Character X] notices that a ring on the vampire's finger is shimmering more brightly than it was before."

Either that, or don't tell them anything and wait for them to loot the ring and identify it. I certainly wouldn't tell them what item the vampire was holding.

Something like that. Don't necessarily tell, but do give them a chance to find out. A spellcraft or spot check seems appropriate.

[dsmiles]

Never tell.

Hints are ok, if one of the characters proves perceptive enough.

[Morph Bark]

When my campaign started yesterday, I had already informed the players that there were very few gnomes left in the world either due to genocidal actions by elves or kobolds (opinions vary in the world), among other things. The real reason? Well, they might find that out later on.

And thus, great plothooks are made.

[dsmiles]

When my campaign started yesterday, I had already informed the players that there were very few gnomes left in the world either due to genocidal actions by elves or kobolds (opinions vary in the world), among other things.

That seems like it would be common knowledge. Like what races were available for play (since I despise gnomes, I would love to play in this world).

[Morph Bark]

That seems like it would be common knowledge. Like what races were available for play (since I despise gnomes, I would love to play in this world).

If you hate elves too, or love new takes on elves, or love pirate campaigns, or more power to goblins, then that world is for you.

[dsmiles]

If you hate elves too, or love new takes on elves, or love pirate campaigns, or more power to goblins, then that world is for you.

If they're steampunkmadscientistelfslayinggoblinpirates, I'm in!

[Katana_Geldar]

Finding out at the same time as your character is a great thing. If you know too much as a player, it shapes your actions and leads you to metagame. Also, if the players don't know they can do some rather funny things in their ignorance, including going off on a tangent then you can decide that is much more interesting and move the plot accordingly.

Here's the ultimate don't tell:

I'm co-DMing an adventure that's set in my own personal campaign, one of the guys wanted to drop out so I asked if he wanted to share the chair with me, and so a great game was made.
We went with this adventure knowing that his character will come back when the adventure is over, so while I have given him enough information to help me DM the adventure there are some questions that I won't answer because they're revealed much later in the campaign where his character will be there. All the same, there are a stack of secrets about the campaign we haven't revealed, to the point where we changed the ending slightly as it subverted the players expecations.

[Pisha]

It depends a lot on your players. In general, you don't want to tell the players anything the characters wouldn't know - not only does it keep them honest, but it's really more fun that way. Sometimes, you can make exceptions. In the game I'm currently running, my players are all pretty solid rp-ers, and I trust them to be responsible with ooc knowledge. If they really want to know about something (and it's not a plot secret), I'm usually ok with letting them in on what I'm doing.

If, on the other hand, your players are upset about not knowing because they wouldn't have wasted a spell if they'd been told... that right there is your first reason for not telling them anything!

[valadil]

I prefer not telling, both as player and GM. I think it's easier to roleplay when a player's knowledge is the same as his character's knowledge. As a GM, I try to facilitate that.

As a player it really frustrates me to know something my character doesn't. I end up in this loop of second guessing, wondering if each action I take is influenced by metagame knowledge. Eventually I just clam up, hoping to not accidentally spout info I don't have.

It baffles me that there are players that would have it any other way.

I do consider it good form to tell people when their attack is not effective- AFTER they make the attack, not before. Like "You blast him with lightening and... nothing. He doesn't even flinch." but not like "Before you make that attack you should know this enemy has energy immunity."

Agreed. You need to communicate what the characters see back to the players. It's not fair to let them cast lightning bolt several times over during the course of the fight if it's just a waste of time. If the players really want this kind of knowledge going into the fight, they can do some research or divination.

[nyarlathotep]

No. you should not tell everything.
when a player says "But goblins does not work like that!" I say "exactly!" and leave it at that. they will have to find out these kind of things in character.
A good player does not say "the vampire was immune to my magic? he's cheating!" he says "the vampire was immune to my magic? lets find out why!"

correction, that is the attitude of a good player who also trusts his DM to craft a good game and not be arbitrary.

[Shademan]

correction, that is the attitude of a good player who also trusts his DM to craft a good game and not be arbitrary.

that sounds like player-sympathizing talk!

[Kurald Galain]

A good player does not say "the vampire was immune to my magic? he's cheating!" he says "the vampire was immune to my magic? lets find out why!"

Exactly.

If you play a board game, you're entitled to have full knowledge of how all the elements of the game work so that you can make the optimal decision in every circumstance. If you play a roleplaying game, you are limited to what your character knows and what your character can find out; the aim is to play a role, not to be tactically optimal all the time.

[obliged_salmon]

First off. Example OP gave with the energy resistance? If I was DM'ing, and the PC's wanted to take down a powerful vampire for some reason, I'd sure as heck give them an opportunity to learn about its defenses before they launched a full scale attack. That being said, combat vulnerabilities are really boring examples of player/character knowledge spoilering.

Let's say PC 1 wants to kill the vampire because the vampire killed his family.
Meanwhile, PC 2 wants to kill him because the vampire turned his older brother a few years back. What PC 2 doesn't know is that the original vampire left town a while back and left PC brother in charge, and so they're currently hunting down the brother.

As GM, I'd totally tell player 2 all of that. Why? Because it gives tension to the moments leading up to that encounter, where otherwise there would be much less tension.

Example. Game I'm playing, my PC wants to rescue a girl being held "prisoner" by his father. What he doesn't know (but I know as player) is that the girl loves his father, and is carrying his child. Knowing that as a player lets me participate in scene setting, and storytelling, in a way that I could not do at all without knowing those details. Of course I'm not going to metagame. That would break the story, and I'm not at all interested in doing that.

[Shpadoinkle]

There's a line between players and DMs that's almost necessary simply due to the nature of PnP RPGs.

If the players know EVERYTHING the DM knows, then there's nothing to stop them from metagaming to hell and back and 'justifying' if with stories from their character's background.

On the other extreme, the players knowing nothing about the game world is bad too. An entire party of elves heading to a city where elves are executed on sight, with no forewarning from the DM or any NPCs, is a bad thing- the characters would most likely have at least heard stories about such a place.

As it is with a lot of things in this kind of game, the key here is communication between the players and the DM. "Would my character know about that?" is a legitimate question, especially in a homebrew setting the players have no experience with. If the players are bumbling into something their characters should know is a really bad idea, I think the DM is obligated to inform them, "Guys, your characters would know about this and that it's an extremely bad idea because blah blah blah."

[Earthwalker]

Even the simple example in the orginal post is complicated when you start looking at it.

Do all characters know about energy resistance items ?

Is it given in your world that anyone with some knownledge arcane would know about that kind of item ?
If a player knows about it, does it follow thier characters do ?

I do like to run games where my players barly know the rules (this does happen as they sometimes can't be bothered paying too much attention to the rules)

It is nice showing them new effects / spells / power / skills and how they work. It is annoying when they need help knowing what dice to roll. I do prefer this but then I might be a control freak.

I can usualy cope with players that know all the rules, but I do notice alot more meta gaming.

Its a balance, its annoying being faced with a 3 foot gap to jump and having no idea if your character can make the jump.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

There's a line between players and DMs that's almost necessary simply due to the nature of PnP RPGs.

If the players know EVERYTHING the DM knows, then there's nothing to stop them from metagaming to hell and back and 'justifying' if with stories from their character's background.

On the other extreme, the players knowing nothing about the game world is bad too. An entire party of elves heading to a city where elves are executed on sight, with no forewarning from the DM or any NPCs, is a bad thing- the characters would most likely have at least heard stories about such a place.

As it is with a lot of things in this kind of game, the key here is communication between the players and the DM. "Would my character know about that?" is a legitimate question, especially in a homebrew setting the players have no experience with. If the players are bumbling into something their characters should know is a really bad idea, I think the DM is obligated to inform them, "Guys, your characters would know about this and that it's an extremely bad idea because blah blah blah."

Seconded.

Players should be told the tactical advantages of specific scheming villains, or the secret knowledge of the Elder Races or any of that sort of thing - but they need to know the things that their players would know.

But famous, in-character knowledge and legends - yes, players need to be told those things. Reminded of them now and then if they appear to have forgotten. A DM who keeps that information to herself isn't playing fair.
Many years ago I played in a game where speaking a god's name aloud in its temple had a chance to summon the god. I only found out about this when the DM killed my character with a cheesed off god, angry at being summoned.
Stuff like that makes players angry. Twenty five years ago, that was, and I still feel cheated.

[Tyndmyr]

By RAW, they learn of DR/Resistance after they experience it. So, after the first lightning bolt, they'll be aware of the resist. If it's high enough, they'll know they did no damage at all, and will not be able to distinguish it from immunity.

Players certainly have no built in right to know every detail of their adversaries loadout in advance unless they accomplish this in game.

I would let them know things that people would reasonably know. I don't make them roll to identify a bear.

[Morph Bark]

If they're steampunkmadscientistelfslayinggoblinpirates, I'm in!

The elves are the mad scientists actually, but of course the goblins love stealing that stuff and improve it. Improve it explosively.

Beyond those, the only major races are some human-descended ones and Catfolk, who are the goblins' rivals/allies. The few remaining gnomes tend to be rogues, ninjas, beguilers and the like. Because we need ninjas versus pirates and actually give it a story purpose!


But more on topic, yeah, be careful with telling too much, especially to players who are either new or have no compunctions about metagaming. But with new players you should go slow anyway, rather than dump a whole lotta stuff on them in one go. Hence why I am glad I got to do a short-lived campaign with my new players before getting into one that had a developed world and story.

[DeadManSleeping]

Here's what you need to ask yourself: Will keeping this a secret from the players really enhance their gaming experience?

There are a lot of things which, technically, the characters would have no idea about. However, just because it's information they don't have access to doesn't make it an intriguing mystery. For instance, no, they really wouldn't have any idea what Big Boss Bad's normal AC is, but they're not going to gab after the session asking "Gee, I can't wait to find out what his AC is". So, really, is it worth keeping it a secret? Honestly, if you just tell them, it can save time on rolls, and gives players an opportunity to make tactically viable decisions instead of just randomly coming up with something and hoping that it doesn't end in failure after frustrating failure. A GM's job is not to oppose the players, just to oppose the PCs. There's a difference.

Now, with your specific example, I can't imagine you'd need to say anything more than that the vampire absorbs electricity damage. Your players should be aware that the vampire might have access to things that let him do this. It's not like knowing the information changes anything anyway. It's not like they aren't going to loot his corpse and identify all the magic items anyway.

In short, don't be stingy with information on the sole reason that the PCs don't have a way of ascertaining it. Judge based on whether or not it will make the playing experience better to know it or not.

[Vladislav]

The example that came up in the game was simple enough: They cast a lightning bolt on a vampire and it had no effect(vampire had a ring of energy resistance). So after that they all wanted to know 'why the lightning bolt did not work?'. Was I 'cheating'? They thought they should 'know' about things that might stop their magic, as it was not 'fair' that they wasted it.

It's a matter of group dynamics. I guess they got used to a different, more transparent type of play. Myself, I don't like total transparency, neither as a player nor DM. Discovery is half the fun.

As a DM, you do not owe them an explanation. If they feel a bit miffed about having wasted a spell, tell them, politely but firmly, that the spell was lost due to an in-game effect, and you didn't make a mistake nor employ DM fiat. Tell them you'd rather not reveal further details. Tell them there will be an opportunity for discovery during play later, but for now, some things will remain a mystery. Explain to them, that your DMing style is slightly different from what they were used to, and ask them to accept it.

Hopefully, this will clear the air.