Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2594192" data-attributes="member: 18280">I don't know about Majoru, but I would say that the DM decides what is "enough detail" when describing what happens, and if the players feel that they are consistently not receiving the details that their PCs should reasonably know they will, sooner or later, seek out a new DM or start a new game.Which is not so say that the players cannot or should not seek to remedy the problem within that DM's game.  Quite often, I think, new DMs are not certain what information the PCs should reasonably know, and are not sure how to impart that information to the players.  In many cases, rules transparency means that, when something varies from what is expected, the players ought to prick up their ears.  Something is obviously happening.  It is either in the real world (the DM is new/doesn't fully understand the rules/is a dink) or in the game world (some unknown factor is working against the PCs).  The players relationship with the DM is going to be the primary factor in determining whether or not the players suspect that the reason is in-game or out-of-game.Me, I love to say:  "You don't know, do you?"  This is my catch-all, meaning, "There is an in-game effect which is affecting what you preceive, but the cause of the effect is not apparent."  If the DM acknowledges that the PC expectation normally should be different than what the PCs are actually experiencing, most players IME will accept that the DM knows what s/he is doing and the game will not dissolve into an argument.But, again, we are now in the area of "what constitutes good DMing" rather than "who has the authority to determine how much information is enough".  The DM has the authority.  Abuse of that authority has its own consequences.RC</blockquote>

Verification