How much should the players know?

[RFisher]

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?

The characters would have some idea of what sorts of monsters exist in the world, but that knowledge is likely to be incomplete. They may have heard stories of a few that don't actually exist. There will be monsters that exist that they haven't heard of. For those that they have heard of & that do exist, what they know about them may be wrong.

So, give them the information. Just make it clear that this is what their characters know & that it may not be 100% accurate. (& don't make it 100% accurate.)

If you're willing to dedicate the time to it, you can even give different players different info.

 

[Hussar]

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

However, how do you separate the campaign from the setting? Choosing a particular locale in a setting will obviously denote some of the opposition the party will face. Or at least rule out others. If I'm playing in a desert campaign, then taking Aquatic creatures as a favoured enemy is perhaps a bad idea.

Or, if you pull out Against the Giants, it's not exactly a big jump for the ranger to pick Giants as an enemy. Setting and campaign should be pretty tightly intertwined if the setting or the campaign is to have any sort of consistency.

 

[DragonLancer]

However, how do you separate the campaign from the setting?

IMO the campaign is the scenarios/adventures that make it up. The setting is the world.

Or, if you pull out Against the Giants, it's not exactly a big jump for the ranger to pick Giants as an enemy. Setting and campaign should be pretty tightly intertwined if the setting or the campaign is to have any sort of consistency.

If I was just going to run that series of adventures then yes, I'd give a hint, but I'm talking about a regular campaign.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like the Character knowledge == to Player knowledge way of playing. It releases me as a DM from having to prognosticate what the players wants the character to know and I get a nice, seemless experience with the character. There's little to no OOC knowledge I need to forget or somehow fake knowing.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

No. I have a player who always asks about the game ahead of time so he can take things to counter me. Flat out, the players get to know nothing. They get enough information to make a character. Like the region they choose, or whatever they would know on a Knowledge (appropriate category) check. But I refuse ot show them my hand as far as the story goes.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I either use a setting with extremely restricted choices that would naturally guide the players to certain options (a humans-as-the-only-known-sapient-creatures setting sends a pretty clear message to drop Favored Enemy (giants), for example ) or a kitchen sink in which anything can and probably will show up. Purely do to my personal preference, players who've played in several of my campaigns are more likely to prep for Constructs, Aberrations and Giants than Dragons, Outsiders and Oozes, but a newbie coming in cold could reasonably expect to face off with the latter three once in a blue moon.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I like the playes to know a lot...

I often tell them what they are likely to run into when they go somewhere new, "This land is widely known to be the home of many different types of scaly folk, including Lizardmen, Kobolds, and even bullywugs and gripli. What is less well known is that the whole place is likely under the thrall of some very cranky Yuanti religious zealots. So watch out!."

I also sometimes describe to them scenes or events from the perspective of the bad guy, or a hapless victim of the scary monster... Things that there's no reasonable way that they could possibly know.

Sometimes, I like to throw a nice surprise at them, as well... "You guys are going to get your butts kicked when you go to face this guy. Its going to be great!" ...or... "Bet you didn't see THAT coming, did you? Ha!"

Even though I give the players this information, they are generally pretty good at acting as if their characters do not have it. I would not be terribly upset if they did have their characters act upon the information that I've given the players, that is just the way that they choose to go about it.

later
silver

 

[Hussar]

IMO the campaign is the scenarios/adventures that make it up. The setting is the world.



If I was just going to run that series of adventures then yes, I'd give a hint, but I'm talking about a regular campaign.

That's all very well and good to say, but, again, didn't answer my question. Sure, Greyhawk is the setting. We're going to run Savage Tide in Greyhawk. Well, that already cuts out about 99% of the setting, since it only takes place in a very few locations. The campaign is going to be happening in and around water most of the time and pretty tropical.

Right there, setting has knocked off desert creatures as a favoured enemy, as well as cold ones as well.

Yes, the adventures will determine the campaign, but, unless your adventures are a fairly mixed bag of completely unrelated events, those adventures are going to rely pretty heavily on the setting. I did misspeak a bit when I said Against the Giants. Take it to GDQ or RTTOEE and now you have an entire campaign. Taking Favored Enemy Animals in either campaign is a complete waste of time.

It's not terribly unfair to assume as a player that I'll have a bit of a hint as to what's coming. I don't see movies without any foreknowledge. I generally read the blurb on the back of a novel before reading it. I fail to see why the campaign I'm going to spend the next hundred or two hundred hours participating in can't survive if the DM gives me a couple of hints about what to expect.

 

[DragonLancer]

Currently I am running Age of Worms. Before we started, other than a rundown of the area where they start the campaign, the players knew nothing about where it was going to go. They didn't even know if the was Age of Worms or Age of Wyrms! It has only been the last (3rd) session where they actually have picked up a hint of what it's about. To me thats fine.

I've already said that when we finish AoW we'll do Savage Tide, and all I've said is that it's got a Pirates of the Carribean type feel.

IMO AoW doesn't need the players to know anything special. ST I'll give needs that they know it's got a certain feel, but I still wouldn't tell them what to expect beyond that. I certianly wouldn't let them know whats to come so they could choose a favoured enemy (if anyone played a ranger), thats something the player would need to choose knowing ST will have a nautical theme.


I know what you are saying, but when theres no need to give away anything (AoW as an example) why do it?