Plot transparency

[The Shaman]

There is as much plot transparency as the player unearths.

"You must spread some Experience Points around . . ."

 

[S'mon]

As DM I much prefer giving the PCs as much info as possible, so that if the player does any work, they can understand what is going on.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to be cheesy here and say, "it depends."

It really depends on the player, the situation, the campaign, the system we're playing and what the expectations are around the table.

There are some players that I'd be totally up front with, because I know that if I toss something like this in their lap, they're going to run with it and turn it into far more table gold than I could. OTOH, I've had players who aren't really interested in that sort of thing and would rather I do the lifting and carrying for plotsy type stuff - they just want to react.

Some systems make hiding information problematic at best and downright annoying as well. An item that hits you with a -2 on your attacks (as a basic example) is going to get discovered pretty quickly by a player who is fairly mechanically sharp. Or, it might lead to some frustration on the player's part when he fails to do something and cannot come up with a reason why.

Again, nothing game breaking, but, sometimes it leads to table drama.

So, yeah, I'm going to park my keister on the fense and say, maybe.

 

[Kraydak]

The question posed is adequately vague that the only real answer is, of course, "It depends". But we can probably add to that "If you have to ask, the answer is probably yes, the players have a right to know." Payers definitely have a right to know about all house rules (which include such things as Fireball summoning angry fire elementals). Any time your plot elements have a good chance of rendering a (normally valid) character concept useless, you need to tell the players, especially if it will only become obvious significantly into the campaign. This ranges from "3e, lots of undead, think twice about loading up on Sneak Attack" to "arcane magic use powers up the big bads... at a level where even a single Archmage has a measurable impact."

 

[fba827]

The question posed is adequately vague that (snip)

Sadly, yes, I have to be vague since several members of my game group visit ENWorld.

 

[The Shaman]

Payers definitely have a right to know about all house rules (which include such things as Fireball summoning angry fire elementals).

Really?

What if the fireball-attracts-fire-elementals effect was something specific to particular areas of the game-world? There's a right to know that?

What if some trolls are affected by sunlight and cold iron but not fire and acid? Right to know that, too?

 

[Nagol]

Really?

What if the fireball-attracts-fire-elementals effect was something specific to particular areas of the game-world? There's a right to know that?

What if some trolls are affected by sunlight and cold iron but not fire and acid? Right to know that, too?

I'd say the players have the right to know if it is a condition they can reasonably expect to generally affect them throughout the campaign. Otherwise, it ends up being a "gotcha moment" that the player may have preferred to adopt a different character design if the drama was unwanted. Much like if the culture hates and fears Wizards and will burn them at the stake if revealed should be disclosed to the player prior to character creation.

Specific locales that the PCs can reasonably avoid or limit exposure in are a different story. Further, if the PCs are starting at first level and the association of elementals and fireballs is expected to be discoverable then the players need not be told (if the society has not yet discovered the link).

 

[Kraydak]

Really?

What if the fireball-attracts-fire-elementals effect was something specific to particular areas of the game-world? There's a right to know that?

As always, it depends (weak smile). A (singular) dungeon with a population of Fire Elementals that get pissy when someone casts fire-based spells? No problem. All Fire Elementals being able to detect the vaguely-nearby (same plane!) casting of fire-based spells and usually taking grave offense? Problem.

If it is common enough that easy Knowledge checks or modest use will reveal the problem, it needs to be known. If there is a well defined campaign arc preplanned, and it will become an important point, it needs to be known at Char Gen (results vary based on the ease of respeccing).

What if some trolls are affected by sunlight and cold iron but not fire and acid? Right to know that, too?

If the number of troll effected by sunlight and cold iron, but not fire and acid, is at all significant, then it should show up on easy Knowledge checks. 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.

 

[Hussar]

The question posed is adequately vague that the only real answer is, of course, "It depends". But we can probably add to that "If you have to ask, the answer is probably yes, the players have a right to know." Payers definitely have a right to know about all house rules (which include such things as Fireball summoning angry fire elementals). Any time your plot elements have a good chance of rendering a (normally valid) character concept useless, you need to tell the players, especially if it will only become obvious significantly into the campaign. This ranges from "3e, lots of undead, think twice about loading up on Sneak Attack" to "arcane magic use powers up the big bads... at a level where even a single Archmage has a measurable impact."

I can totally get behind this.

I once had a DM in a 2e game, after my character had spent significant time, several levels, and tons of money building a library and a laboratory so that I could research spells, suddenly announce that my odds of spell research were now cut by 75%, because, in his view, "relatively low level MU's should never be able to create their own spells".

Had I known that my chance of success was going to go from 25% (ish) to about 5% per attempt, with each attempt taking several weeks and signficant resouces (as per the 2e Complete Wizard's spell creation rules), I might not have designed my character around the concept that he was a research wizard.

Like Kraydak says, if the DM's information should be easily available to the affected character, such as the odds of summoning a fire elemental every time a fire spell is cast (presuming this is a campaign wide issue, and not something really specific to a relatively small locale), then the DM should be providing this information without prompting.

Otherwise, you just annoy the crap out of your players.

 

[RedTonic]

In your example, though, the issue wasn't a plot one (AFAICT), but a mechanical one--and a dick move by the DM. Hopefully it was an outlier.

I am of two minds on the plot thing. I don't want to ruin surprises for my players. I usually give build suggestions during character creation, and will answer (most) questions posed about what will be useful over the course of the campaign. For example, I encourage taking knowledge skills, because I don't allow untrained checks. (Other information under a DC 10 would just be an intelligence check, likewise, you can just go search up the local scuttlebutt).

I make it a policy to state up front and early that if I make any changes during the campaign that hurt someone's character build/concept (and basically make it 'unfun' for the player) that I'm completely willing to work with the player on a rebuild--or heck, a new PC if they want it.

I'm not out to stomp on my players' enjoyment, but I also hope they'll work with me (and accept that the game isn't 100% in their hands this time). That's the agreement when we choose someone to be the storyteller--in my group, that is; we consent to give up some power to the individual doing the GMing.