How much should the players know?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Whizbang, I get what you're saying, but I'm not 100 percent sure I understand how basing my adventures around the PCs results in this so-called "kitchen sink" setting.

IME, and it's only IME, players tend to pick wildly differing character types, left alone to do their thing. I'm sure there's a way to fit planetouched, psychics, samurai and bards together, but either you end up with a very unique-to-that-group homebrew, or it's kitchen sinky. IME.

 

[Hussar]

I'm with Whizbang on this one. I don't design my campaigns around the PC's. Never have. I present a given campaign setting and then expect the players to meet me halfway and try to fit in their concepts. For example, I'll be running Savage Tide some time down the line. It's a piratey sort of campaign. I don't want to see elven ninja's in the game. I just don't. They don't fit with what I have envisioned for the campaign, so, if the player came to me wanting to play an elven ninja, the answer would be no.

((Disclaimer, I'm a player in Away's campaign, so this affects me. ))

I don't think it's out of line to give some broad hints as to what you can expect in a campaign. If you're going to be slogging through jungles fighting dinosaurs and demons most of the time, perhaps humanoid is a bad idea for a species enemy. Going back to the STAP for a second, there aren't a whole lot of traps in the adventures. So, Dungeon Delver PRC's might be a bad idea. I don't have a problem with the DM posting a couple of roadsigns for the players.

 

[thedungeondelver]

So, Dungeon Delver PRC's might be a bad idea.

What you say?!

 

[airwalkrr]

I recommend giving the players an idea about the theme of the campaign, but making sure to include ways to make the PC abilities useful even if they do not wish to take advantage of the knowledge you give them. For instance, if you say you will be running a campaign about battling the minions of the god of death and his extraplanar allies, the players know undead will be featured and probably some outsiders too. Of course, you can find ways to help make the bard or rogue feel useful in this campaign (possibly by pointing them in the direction of Libris Mortis).

 

[shilsen]

It looks like I'll be DM'ing a game in Eberron after our WLD group is over and I got to thinking; should you let your players know what beasties they're likely to encounter?

I'd suggest something different, which is way harder to pull off but often much more satisfying for both DMs and players - don't decide beforehand what beasties they're likely to encounter. Rather than a predetermined campaign idea, throw out a number of (preferably very different) plot hooks right at the start and let the campaign develop organically from the choices the PCs make. So, for example, if the PCs start off with the options of:

1) Checking out sewers from where it's likely that some aberrations have been emerging

2) Provide security for a caravan traveling through the territory of some militant gnolls

3) Explore some undead-haunted ruins and recover an ancient treasure

4) Guard an important dignitary against assassination attempts

Then the enemies will depend on their choices. And the direction of the campaign will depend on their choices as well.

 

[Li Shenron]

It looks like I'll be DM'ing a game in Eberron after our WLD group is over and I got to thinking; should you let your players know what beasties they're likely to encounter? On the one hand you might not want to give too much away. On the other hand, you don't want to gimp a ranger by not letting him know his favored enemy won't be featured, or a rogue by only using undead. My gut instinct on this is to say "yes, they should know." but I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Note: I've DM'ed several adventures for another group but have never actually started a campaign before. Anything else you might think to include?

If you think it will benefit the game, why not?

Obviously you're not going to tell them detailed things like "In the next adventure you'll face 5 frost giants, 20 salamanders and a blue dragon" before the game, but instead you're going to let the characters find out as the story unfolds.

But general things can be informed beforehand: if you hate e.g. dragons and you don't want them to exist in your setting, it's unfair not to tell the players so, at least when you notice that some of the PC are choosing abilities that require those creatures to be encountered!

So what's your plan for this campaign? If you plan to use lots of undead, just let the players know that there will be many. I don't think this is enough to discourage someone to play a Rogue, but it's better NOT to have a rogue, than to have a disappointed rogue that has no fun...

Eventually, consider allowing a variant to make up for it, such as the UA variant where a Rogue can trade her Sneak Attack with a number of bonus feats.

 

[DragonLancer]

It looks like I'll be DM'ing a game in Eberron after our WLD group is over and I got to thinking; should you let your players know what beasties they're likely to encounter? On the one hand you might not want to give too much away. On the other hand, you don't want to gimp a ranger by not letting him know his favored enemy won't be featured, or a rogue by only using undead. My gut instinct on this is to say "yes, they should know." but I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Note: I've DM'ed several adventures for another group but have never actually started a campaign before. Anything else you might think to include?

I don't tell them anything. They have no way of knowing before the game what they are going to expect.

The closest I come to that is I might suggest they have a cleric or that gather info might be a good skill to have, but I'd never tell them what opponents they are going to face. Thats counter productive to the nature of the game.

Assuming a regular D&D game, a ranger can expect his favoured enemy/enemies to show up (perhaps Giants are the one exception which I don't see all that often) so again the player doesn't need to know.

 

[awayfarer]

Well, since it's my opinion that they should be dictating where they go and what they face, not you as the DM, they would therefore know exactly what they'll be facing. ... In otherwords...don't worry about it so much.

I think it's important that I mention, I am not exactly plotting out the Gotterdammerung. I have a basic idea as to direction the campaign might take and I think there will be a few varieties of enemy that feature more prominently than others.

Think of it this way; you build a few dirt roads and the PC's decide which ones to pave over and continue along. Possibly they say "to hell with these roads" and go off and do something else. I'm fine with that, but I feel like it still makes sense to plot a few things. At the very least you'll need something to ge them going at first and I don't imagine you can have a contingency for every single thing they'll want to do.

If the players aren't familiar with the setting you should give them an overview of what any character of average intelligence would be able to know about the setting. This will help them integrate thier character concepts into the campaign world. It's a bigger issue with home brews than published settings. With a published setting you probably should only tell them any changes to the published canon that are particular to your campaign and which would be known to a character of average intelligence. You should probably also at least warn them if you plan to depart signficantly from published canon but don't want to reveal just yet how because some setting fans are as bad as rules lawyers.

Yeah. I've posted up a wiki and a message board detailing setting, tone, style of play, house rules, character creation and a rough background reason for the group to get together. I'm generally keeping rules the same. I can think of some other stuff I'd like to add/drop but for the sake of simplicity I have no intention of working in any other rules changes at this time.

For example, I'll be running Savage Tide some time down the line. It's a piratey sort of campaign. I don't want to see elven ninja's in the game. I just don't. They don't fit with what I have envisioned for the campaign, so, if the player came to me wanting to play an elven ninja, the answer would be no.

I take it you still remember Niolta?

I recommend giving the players an idea about the theme of the campaign, but making sure to include ways to make the PC abilities useful even if they do not wish to take advantage of the knowledge you give them.

Agreed.

Thanks for all your input folks, I think I have my answer.

 

[Hussar]

I don't tell them anything. They have no way of knowing before the game what they are going to expect.

The closest I come to that is I might suggest they have a cleric or that gather info might be a good skill to have, but I'd never tell them what opponents they are going to face. Thats counter productive to the nature of the game.

Assuming a regular D&D game, a ranger can expect his favoured enemy/enemies to show up (perhaps Giants are the one exception which I don't see all that often) so again the player doesn't need to know.

Really? I completely disagree with this. I would never go into a game blind. I would at the very, very least expect to know the geography, basic history and culture of the game I'm going to play in. There have been numerous polls on En World talking about which types of creatures don't get used in people's games. The most recent one had Fey leading the pack with a few others close behind. If you're intending on running a campaign based on, say, the Faerie Queen, then it might be a good idea to run the idea past your players.

If I'm playing in Greyhawk, situated in the Pomarj, I can expect to see tons of humanoids and giants. I'm not likely going to see a whole pile of abberations. If I did see a whole bunch, I would know that something was up. Either there's a plot reason, or, the DM doesn't have a clue on the background of the region he's using. Hopefully it's the former.

 

[DragonLancer]

Really? I completely disagree with this. I would never go into a game blind. I would at the very, very least expect to know the geography, basic history and culture of the game I'm going to play in. There have been numerous polls on En World talking about which types of creatures don't get used in people's games. The most recent one had Fey leading the pack with a few others close behind. If you're intending on running a campaign based on, say, the Faerie Queen, then it might be a good idea to run the idea past your players.

Thats a given. I'm referring to the campaign not the setting. Obviously the players have to know the area they are in.