Black Box DM or Open Book DM?

[ThirdWizard]

So, here’s the basic question: do you as a DM discuss your decision making process with your players. Do you explain to them why you do what you do and ask why they do what they do? If the players are making a decision, and you know that you really prefer one choice to the other, will you speak up and tell them your thoughts on the matter, or even after the fact tell them why things happened the way they did? Does the specificity of the situation change how you react?

I’ve been playing with two of my players for around seven years now, and there are still aspects of the game we haven’t explored. Thus, there are still things that we disagree on. I found a conundrum while they were discussing the creation of a stronghold (after receiving a sizable chunk of money), one player very much wanting it, one very much against it, and the other not really caring. Obviously how the DM handles strongholds can be an important part of the decision here. One DM might have a very different outlook than another, and the same decision in two games might go very very differently.

I know it’s a good idea to discuss overall campaign goals, thoughts on what makes a good game, and general stuff like that. But, do you ever, as a DM, get into the nitty gritty? This also more than verges on metagaming, whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. However, we all have our preconceptions and in-game prejudices that another DM might consider a high point of the game, whereas someone else considers it to be avoided. Without pointing these things out, it might lead to less fun, even if player choices are being influenced by meta-game ideals.

How do you approach this? How far do you go?

 

[Crothian]

If the players ask, I'll answer the questions.

 

[Quickleaf]

A good question, and perhaps one worthy of an article at roleplayingtips.com!

This came up once in a big way for me. A player questioned my depiction of a certain NPC they trusted very dearly. I said "Are you sure you want me to talk about it?" All the players agreed, so I gave them the reveal: Their ally was cursed to hold the throne and had a vision of what would happen should one of them become king/queen. This was a major shock for all of them, and since then they never really questioned what I do behind the screen. To be fair, that was a group of friends and we all trusted each other. For example, I never questioned their characters' abilities or how they rolled their dice during creation.

 

[Tarangil]

I will interject with players on decision matters if they're beginners and learning the ropes.

Once they get used to the game, I stay out of the decision making and let them learn by their mistakes.

 

[wingsandsword]

During the session? I don't talk about it, I make the calls, lay out the adventure, and go on. If players have a big problem with it and want to make an issue, I give a brief explanation and promise to talk about it afterwards. This just keeps the game flowing.

Between sessions? I'm open about talking about the direction of the campaign, the rationale for my decisions, and ask the PC's what they are planning so I can prepare. Having fun in an RPG is a collaborative effort between PC's and the GM, not a competition, so ideally the PC's should be willing to share info with the DM to help him plan for what's coming, and the DM should share his rationale for things so the PC's don't believe that things are arbitrary and unfair.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

If the players ask, I'll answer the questions.

Yep, that is about right. I always have a reason, and if they have questions as to the 'why' of one of my rulings I am willing to share. (Largely because in the past I had rather arbitrary games masters who did not do so, including one who always favored* the female players, regardless of circumstances.. he ended up marrying one of them.)

The Auld Grump

*Including such wonders as allowing one of them to use her dance ability to dodge bullets - despite the fact that she had put no points into dodge at all... (This was in Storyteller.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

If the players ask, I'll answer the questions.

Word.

 

[Hjorimir]

I have a couple of players who I share that stuff with because they are very much into the mechanics of the game or DMs themselves (most of my player’s just show up to play and have fun).

I actually find we have many more discussions on the philosophy behind our decisions as opposed to rulings.

 

[The Shaman]

I'll usually append a quick explanation for a ruling during or after gaming. I'm more than happy to answer questions (those that won't lead to spoilers, of course) from the players. I'll sometimes share little tidbits about why certain things are the way they are, again if it doesn't include spoilers.

 

[tetsujin28]

So, here’s the basic question: do you as a DM discuss your decision making process with your players.

Yes.

Do you explain to them why you do what you do and ask why they do what they do?

Yes.

If the players are making a decision, and you know that you really prefer one choice to the other, will you speak up and tell them your thoughts on the matter, or even after the fact tell them why things happened the way they did?

I'm really not sure what you mean, here.

How do you approach this? How far do you go?

In general, unless I'm playing something totally old school like Tunnels & Trolls (or nouveau old school, like Donjon), I do not exist to screw the players over. I'm a facilitator.