Black Box DM or Open Book DM?

[Thunderfoot]

Third Wizard,
There is like you supposed no real wrong or right answer here - I am taking from your later more detailed description that you are in this situation Obviously the stronghold makes you want to tell them either yes or no. So I will give you my advice first, some pointers second and some more questions for you to mull over and make decision on for yourself third (to all else I apologize in advance for the long post)

Firstly, I wouldn't interfere as such - if the characters ask you directly out of game about the possible problems and benefits, give them both. If they are looking for clues as to the "right" decision, don't give it to them, make them work for it. This isn't meant to be frustrating or cruel, but to give them an obstacle to overcome, not all obstacles should have fangs and blood on their minds. But the caveat to this is makes sure that you pay CLOSE attention to the reactions and facial expressions of the PLAYERS - if they get to a point where they are frustrated you have lost them and the game ceases to be fun. I'm going to go a little fogy here, but I have noticed that a large percentage of newer gamers (that's anyone under 10 years) want everything wrapped up in a bow and presented at their feet - a harsh generalization I realize, (so if it doesn't apply to you, please, no flames (let's keep this on topic), however steeped in unfortunate truth. This seems to be a development of modern parenting techniques that even colleges are having problems with. (Ref article CNN here ) that last part was a freebie.

Second: Tips - you mentioned two aspects of what a stronghold can do, allow allies to find you in order to receive training, help, protection etc. It also allows their enemies to find them to extort, cajole, harass and besiege them. As a DM thinking this through is a step in the right direction, however, you mention only either/or, the answer you seek is both. DMing should be shades of gray, not black or white (except with rules interpretation - there your words must be law). Since this is appears to be your biggest question, I'll start here. DMing is a balancing act - you are judge, jury and should the need arise executioner. Many people have in jest stated that "the DM is God", but in reality they aren't far off. (Precariously close to no religion rule for explanative purposes only) The Judeo-Christine-Muslim God has aspects that are both nurturing and punitive, building a world and yet at the same time, not worried about leveling it to save face. Controlling events, both by intersession (direct influence) and by shaping things through independent actions of His creations (indirect action). You too must learn to juggle in this way, be offering both boon and bane to your players (or bennies and slaps for you Paranoia folks). You are neither for nor against the players, as you are both the gods for and against them, allies and axis thereof and the neutral world, animals, weather and situations as well. To make a well rounded campaign, this stronghold should present the character with all three types of events good, bad and indifferent. You have stated the first two quiet succinctly but the third doesn't even show a blip on the radar. What about the following possibilities, taxation, crop disease, disease of any type, annual faires, harvest time, or maybe even a civil war? All of these may have a boon/bane slant, but in truth they happen regardless of whether the players are involved directly or not. These events are neither for nor against, they just are.

Third: Things to digest (i.e. food for thought)
If the characters decide not to build does someone build there instead? (May show all of the above boon/bane/banal events from a third person perspective (a real learning experience)
If they decide to build, how do they acquire the land, do they just claim it? (But Duke/King/Sultan so and so owns this land... uh oh) Buy it? (Ok so the fortress is xx gp - characters are happy and the land rights are xxx gp - characters suddenly realize they are a little short of funds. hhhmm, possible Role playing opps) Granted? (K/D/S grants this land in exchange for your loyal service WHENEVER it is needed! Oh, great!)
Do the local peasants/freemen LIKE the idea of "a new sheriff in town"?
How much will it cost to keep up the keep? (Bills are a constant, even in olden days)

Fourthly (another freebee because I'm so generous ) You might want to pick up "The Castle guide" from TSR (2AD&D product) The rules are pretty dated, but the filler material is pure gold, I've dog-eared my copy so much I have nearly every page bent. You quickly find the "fluffy" bits are much more "crunchy" when you start putting them into practice and use.

I hope this really helps you out. Above all other things, remember, it is JUST A GAME, it’s supposed to BE FUN, it BUILDS FRIENDSHIPS not destroys them.
Just my two coppers, happy gaming!

 

[Varianor Abroad]

What Crothian said.

If the players are asking questions, then it's often better to let them in on a few things than keep them in the dark. Major plot points no, but minor stuff sure.

 

[Agamon]

Definitely. In fact, I don't always wait for them to ask. If I think they are doing something praticularly smart or dumb, I'll chime in with my 2 cents. It's always from their point of view, I don't care how their ideas mess with my plans, I love working my ideas around theirs. But if I think they might be making a really bad choice when they're expecting sunshine and lollipops as a result of their actions, I'll at least warn them of the possible consequences, as generally as possible. If there's an NPC there to weigh in, even better, I'll make it their opinion (if it works conceptually with the NPC, that is). Then sometimes I give bad advice with NPCs, just even it out a bit and keep them guessing.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I definately agree with people who don't want to talk about it during a session. Most important longterm decision making occurs between sessions anyway, when the players talk about their moves for the next session by giving me their plans. During sessions, in the heat of the moment, it would be counter-productive to stop the game to discuss the campaign on a meta-level unless it was something groundshaking, and even then we probably wouldn't.

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.

I agree. Only one of my players has DMed a campaign, and I can tell that it changes your outlook on the game. Philosophy of gameplay is an interesting thing to discuss with him, but with the others seems rather uninspired. Being DM changes one's outlook on the game.

I've found that those that have DMed tend to think of character actions in terms of plot hooks and other things along those lines while those that havn't have a much more PC-centric view of the game. That's just a generalization, of course, but it does bring me back to my point.

Two players, two different outlooks, neither more valid than the other, but one is right in the fact that he and the DM are on the same page while the other one isn't. This isn't necesarrily the one that's DMed in my previous example, because two DMs can have vastly different outlooks. The question becomes, should the DM interject because of this? I've seen some great replies. I still havn't formulated an oppinion as such, though. I'm so wishy-washy.

In some of my rulings (usually in strange circumstances), I also invite discussion and input from the players. "What do you think should happen, and why?" is an oft-repeated question at my table.

I can only imagine the fear on my players faces if I asked them that!

And, I shall never get used to the capital 'A'. I litterally didn't recognize you for a second!

Second: Tips - you mentioned two aspects of what a stronghold can do, allow allies to find you in order to receive training, help, protection etc. It also allows their enemies to find them to extort, cajole, harass and besiege them. As a DM thinking this through is a step in the right direction, however, you mention only either/or, the answer you seek is both.

Sorry, yeah, that's why I wasn't too interested in the particular scenario. I shouldn't have used it twice, it gave away that that particular situation brought this up! I know exactly what will happen if they build the stronghold. The problem is that the players' selective viewpoints about it are getting a bit out of whack. One player only sees the good. Another only sees the bad. I could interject with "You're both right, and here's why" but I don't know if I should at this point.

But, this isn't limited to this situation, this is something I've noticed because we recently (erm.. as in 14 sessions ago) started a new campaign. New campaign, new assumptions, new ideas. The PCs in this campaign are nothing like the old ones, and it seems every time we start a new campaign, we constantly find new things arising that we don't share world-views about. This isn't a bad thing, I think; it means we can branch out, be different, and enjoy new experiences. It just also means that sometimes I, the DM, and the players will expect something completely different than each other. I guess that can be fun, too, though.


I'm actually a bit surprised how forthcoming most posters are with their players. Interesting.

 

[toberane]

I think it is important to tackle some of the metagaming issues as tey come up. In our group, we have at least 4 gamers who also frequently DM. If I, as DM, am uncertain of how to interpret a rule or make a ruling on something that is only vaguely or not at all covered in the rules, I will often ask the other players what they think. They often have very valid reasons for their opinions.

Having said that, I will also say this. If, after the discussion, I disagree with the players, I'll give my reasons for the decision I make and do it my way anyway. And the players, most of them being D&D veterans of more than 20 years each, respect that decision. I interpret rules when I am DMing differently than some of the other gamers in my group when they are DMing.

But having their input is good. And if I know I'm going to be adding an optional rule that we usually don't play with, I try to let that be known up front. We gamed with a DM one time that kept throwing rules variations at us left and right, with no warning and no recourse. We stopped gaming with that DM after about 2 gaming sessions. I don't mind a DM changing the rules, but I like to know about it up front and to be sure that the rules apply equally to the NPCs and monsters as they do to the PCs.

 

[boredgremlin]

Whether i share or not depends on the situation.

In game sometimes i do chime in with advice if it seems like something the characters would know. I find this helpful sometimes with wizards, priests and psychics especially. These guys are great for giving hints to the players because the characters are supposed to know all kinds of wierd stuff that the players themselves likely dont know. Lol after all none of my players are actually super psychics, archmages or magic throwing priests, so sometimes i toss em a bone. Outside of things like this i tend to throw out things like "well you once heard a story about this place" or "you once had a good long talk about a situation like this with another adventurer". Things that are reasonable to have happened but never really come up in-game.

When it comes to plot stuff i usually only chime in if I think they forgot something from a previus session thas important. As DMs we spend more time focusing on the game in between sessions and are the ones who made the story in the first place. So we often remember things the players forget.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

During the game, unless it's a BLATANT mistake, it's "STFU and game, worry about your character, I'll worry about the GMing, and mind yer bizness."

After the game, before the game, during the game, I'm willing to discuss anything but stats, upcoming plots, and secrets.

BUT, I have been willing to redo a combat when there's a major, obvious mistake on my part that resulted in a bad result for the party. I'm not totally inflexible, but I'm not going to validate to the PC's that the orcs do indeed have the feat for cleave, despite what it says in the MM.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

In general, when I DM I go the black box route. I almost never share any inside information with players. That said, I DM in a campaign with multiple other DMs, and we take turns with the adventures. Therefore, any unusual rules decision is made as a consensus with the other DMs in the group, as it then becomes precedent. Character decisions or NPCs actions can be discussed after that NPC is no longer useful (usually dead).

 

[JediSoth]

Like some others have mentioned, I'll answer questions if I'm asked (unless it'll spoil specific parts of the adventure), but generally keep my mouth shut.

I'm not a good liar though, so sometimes if I know they're setting themselves up to be screwed, it's hard to keep a straight face. <---- another reason I don't play poker.

JediSoth

 

[MummyKitty]

I think it depends on the intelligence of the characters. If a player has a very intelligent character, I will probably give him / her more hints than if their character is not so smart. But otherwise I let the players try to figure out their own way through things. If players are heading away from a plot line or area that I want them to explore, that is another area where I will try to nudge them in the right direction. But otherwise you have to be ready to think on your feet and roll with what the players do....