Must You Tell Your Players What Adventure You Are Running?

[Reynard]

Assuming you are using one or more published adventures as the GM of a campaign, are you "required" (by courtesy, if nothing else) to tell your players a) that you are doing so, and/or b) what published adventure you are using.

Now, in the case of something like The Enemy Within for WFRP, or Curse of Strahd for D&D 5E, or any other campaign length published scenario, it seems to be me to be built into the pitch in the first place. "Do you guys want to play The Dracula Dossier?"

But, with a more sandbox campaign that uses adventures to fill it out, the question gets murkier. It feels like the GM probably should give some indication of the fact that they will be using published material in the campaign, but I don't feel like there is any need to say when that is happening or which ones. That castle on yonder hill might be the result of the GM's imagination, a series of random tables, or a published adventure location. Does it matter?

What do you think. When must a GM say that they are using published adventures in (or even as the basis of) the campaign? Are there tangible consequences of doing so or hiding the fact? Do you usually tell your players if you are using published material?

 

[Professor Murder]

So I would recommend it, as it gives players a heads up to avoid reading the material.
Now, if the concern is "If I tell my players which module I am running, they will go out and read it" and they would do so even if you told them specifically so they would not do this, boot them. You don't have a healthy table dynamic.

 

[aco175]

Required- no, courtesy- yes. Even if you are running a generic sandbox with threads all over, the players are part of the game and should know the general themes and ideas. A specific path should allow the players some idea of what kind of character to play and what to aim for.

 

[Older Beholder]

I prefer that the DM tell the players, if only so that they can make appropriate characters for the setting/adventure.
Not telling the players runs the risk that you'll end up using an adventure that someone has already played.

 

[mamba]

Even if you are running a generic sandbox with threads all over, the players are part of the game and should know the general themes and ideas.

which is different from knowing the actual adventure though. I see no obligation to tell them the adventure, I do agree they should know what they are in for however, as you said, the theme

 

[J.Quondam]

Usually I've given players the option to know or not. On the campaign website, I've generally had a section marked "SUPER SEKRIT SPOILERZ!" or something, where I list whatever published material I'm referencing. They can choose to look at it or not.

 

[bloodtide]

No. There is no reason too.

 

[TiQuinn]

Assuming you are using one or more published adventures as the GM of a campaign, are you "required" (by courtesy, if nothing else) to tell your players a) that you are doing so, and/or b) what published adventure you are using.

Now, in the case of something like The Enemy Within for WFRP, or Curse of Strahd for D&D 5E, or any other campaign length published scenario, it seems to be me to be built into the pitch in the first place. "Do you guys want to play The Dracula Dossier?"

But, with a more sandbox campaign that uses adventures to fill it out, the question gets murkier. It feels like the GM probably should give some indication of the fact that they will be using published material in the campaign, but I don't feel like there is any need to say when that is happening or which ones. That castle on yonder hill might be the result of the GM's imagination, a series of random tables, or a published adventure location. Does it matter?

What do you think. When must a GM say that they are using published adventures in (or even as the basis of) the campaign? Are there tangible consequences of doing so or hiding the fact? Do you usually tell your players if you are using published material?

I would only say what it is if it’s a full campaign - “Hey, let’s play Tomb of Annihilation”, etc.

If it’s individual adventures or stuff I’ve created, I think it’s better not to divulge that until afterwards, if at all.

 

[dbm]

I would discuss a campaign pitch, and if that is ‘I want to run XYZ’ then it would naturally involve stating the module.

But if the pitch is ‘I want to run a picaresque campaign which will involve a mix of modules and home brew adventures, built around the central idea of X’ then I wouldn’t list out the modules I was planning to use.

To my mind the main reason to tell people you are running a specific module is either the pitch or to check they haven’t read it already.

 

[uzirath]

Some adventure titles are spoilers themselves. For example, I’m currently running Against the Cult of the Reptile God for one of my GURPS groups. I told them that I’m adapting an old AD&D adventure, but not the title. They still have no idea that there’s a “cult” or a “reptile god;” the slow discovery of those elements is part of the fun.