Plot transparency

Mark CMG · Jul 2, 2011

When I give players some sort of meta-knowledge, it is usually to cover some gap that the characters would have handled if they had been played 24-7 through the full course of their lives. This would include setting information and the mechanical effects of rules on in-game situations and the like. Certainly, if it is common knowledge that, let's say, using Elemental Magic can attract elemental beings, that info is shared. If, however, the characters would have no way of knowing this except through trial and error, then that is how it is to be discovered in-game by the characters.

The Shaman · Jul 2, 2011

Kraydak said:
If the PCs have the ability to know, but the players do not know and even cannot know to ask, then the DM should offer the information without prompting.

Combine the above with telling players anything that could screw them over at Char Gen, and a DM should be ok.

I think the first part is pretty close to the way I handle things when I'm behind the screen, but I'm a little hesitant about "ability to know."

Consider a spellcasting character who doesn't know any spells which invoke magical fire yet - no burning hands, certainly no fireball. I could see not informing the character that using a spell which creates magical flames attracts the attention of creatures from the Elemental Plane of Fire until such time as they learn the spell.

One could argue that a spellcaster's training prepares them in such a way that this is relatively common knowledge, but as a player I wouldn't presume this to be so - I don't think every magic-user need be a product of a a Hogwarts or Roke style magical education. This makes magic something to be explored as a feature of the setting.

Frex, if I was running a d20 game, then I might use something like, if the DC for a Knowledge (Arcane) check can be reached on a take 10, then it's common knowledge to someone with the skill, but for characters who know how to cast some form of magical fire, then they can effectively take 20 on the check to determine what is common knowledge.

As far as "screwing over" the players at chargen, if magic is meant to have hidden consequences as a feature of the campaign, then a simple, "Spells may have additional effects in the game-world that aren't in the by-the-book descriptions," gives the players advance warning.

steenan · Jul 4, 2011

I handled this matter in various ways - each game has its own style and approach.

When we play with a strong simulationist focus, the main determinant is a reasonable level of in-character knowledge. There are things characters should know, being who they are, even if players do not. There is no sense and no reason for denying this knowledge to players - they need it to make sensible choices. It is not possible to predict and determine everything that should be known at the beginning, so a big part of the information is provided when it becomes important.

In a game with a strong gamist focus, some knowledge will be made available and some kept secret. Various surprises on one hand, and brilliant player deductions on the other are a part of the fun. So, while there is no sense in using auto-defeat gotchas, keeping players on their toes is something the GM should do - presenting challenges is his job, after all.

In a game with narrativist focus, there will probably be more metagame knowledge, available to the player, but not the PC. Many such games use conflict resolution - and setting the stakes is explicitly discussing with players something that is outside of character knowledge. Some games use metagame resources, negotiation or other kinds of mechanics that require players to consider OOC things in their decisions. Finally, even if the system itself does not use metagame techniques, a narrativist play focuses on players' choices, so it is crucial to make those choices meaningful. Without knowledge, a choice is not meaningful, it is random.

GSHamster · Jul 4, 2011

I've often found that players don't really "get" as much information as the DM thinks is being conveyed.

If it's really important, it's usually better to be blunt and hit them over the heads with it (ie Gandalf telling Frodo about the Ring). A connection that is perfectly obvious to the DM, is often very obscure to the players.

Hussar · Jul 5, 2011

I'm a HUGE believer in the Cluebat:

FireLance · Jul 5, 2011

Hussar said:
I'm a HUGE believer in the Cluebat:

I prefer the Clue-by-four.

"Cluebat" sounds like some World's Greatest Detective expy.

EDIT: And if I ever run a superheroes campaign, I now have the name of the mysterious hint-dropping NPC who helps the PCs out when they get stuck.

ThirdWizard · Jul 5, 2011

DMs should beware of looking arbitrary or random. If it is unlikely that the players will piece together the cause/effect of what is going on, then its just going to seem frustrating to them. Take the fireball spell calling in fire elementals. If the wizard can only cast one fireball spell a day, the party might never put two and two together. They are likely to leave the area thinking that fire elementals randomly show up for no reason in that area. That's fine, but it probably isn't what the DM was going for. If they're there for an extended period of time, they might realize that, hey, those elementals always seem to show up right after the wizard's turn, isn't that weird. Then they might piece it together slowly. But it really could take a while to figure out its a particular spell.

That isn't to say that I'm all for telling them everything. But, remember to put yourself in the players' shoes. There's often a lot of stuff going on around them, and what to pay attention to and what not to pay attention to are constantly in flux.

Hussar · Jul 5, 2011

And, ThirdWizard, let's not forget, the players get to interact with the game world once a week for a few hours. The DM is probably interacting with his game world several times a week or at least considerably more than the players do.

It's not all that hard for details to slip through the cracks. Particularly if the group meets even less. Trying to put things together when the clues are spread out over several weeks of real time, interspersed between various other goings on that happen, can be pretty difficult.

I think it's pretty solid advice for DM's to err on the side of "bloody obvious" rather than "subtle".

ThirdWizard · Jul 5, 2011

Players will, with nigh infallible odds, always discover that which you want to keep hidden, and ignore that which you consider obvious.

That should go up there with axioms like "No plot ever survives the PCs."