Black Box DM or Open Book DM?

[TheGM]

I'm black-box at the table, but we have websites for all of my worlds, and in-character letters sometimes go out between NPCs so that players have a feel for what is going on in the world.

If a duke has had his life threatened by a particular type of person, that duchy is likely to be hostile to PCs. It's good background for them to have, and my players are pretty good about not crossing that type of info over into character knowledge.

But like everyone else, if they ask I will answer if it doesn't spoil the in-game fun.

When it comes down to it, I do what is most likely to increase all of our enjoyment it is a game after all.

 

[tetsujin28]

I shall clarify. (snip)
So, one DM might see the PCs building the stronghold, and now their enemies can find them whenever they want. They'll be under constant assualt, and have no safe place to go. Another might decide that now hopefulls come to the PCs to seek training, adventures open up because people seek aid, and nobles start to see them as equals. Another might do both. Another might do neither.

Gotcha. I'd do both.

Now, that was just an example, but in general terms, the question is, before the fact, would you warn them of the consequences of their actions for situations where the consequences are difficult to predict, not because of in game facts, but because of what the DM thinks about a situation?

Yes.

Would it be different for long term plans (working on an alliance between two states) as opposed to short term plans (hunting down a fugative)? Would you explain yourself after the fact if not beforehand?

Probably beforehand.

 

[boredgremlin]

I try to give players as much background on the kingdom and situation as they should reasonably have.

But if something comes along that it seems like thier characters should know then i dont expect the player to have memorized the world book. Thats a DM's job not a players so i will give tell them things thier characters should have knowledge of.

 

[haiiro]

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?

I wrote a post about this on Treasure Tables, my weblog for GMs: "The Bones in the Soup."

In a nutshell, I laid out how I was approaching the campaign for the players -- and a few weeks into the game, I think doing so has had positive results.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I wrote a post about this on Treasure Tables, my weblog for GMs: "The Bones in the Soup."

In a nutshell, I laid out how I was approaching the campaign for the players -- and a few weeks into the game, I think doing so has had positive results.

That's pretty interesting. I also like the “Every Campaign is an Experiment" thing.

 

[haiiro]

That's pretty interesting. I also like the “Every Campaign is an Experiment" thing.

Thanks! I had fun writing both of them.

 

[the Jester]

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

Quoted for truth.

 

[Zzyzx]

Open book. It is a game that we are all playing together.

And I need to keep my players happy or they will mutiny.

 

[frankthedm]

The book is open enough so that the players know they want it kept in a black box.

 

[shilsen]

The book is open enough so that the players know they want it kept in a black box.

I like the way you think