Must You Tell Your Players What Adventure You Are Running?

[kigmatzomat]

In the 1990s we rarely did did, unless it was explicitly the pitch (Let's play the old Desert of Desolation series), something highly atypical (who wants to go to Athas or Ravenloft?) Or if you had other GMs in the game who might have it/buy it.

These days you need to so players can avoid spoilers. Between players who follow "actual play" streamers, the one who buys all the Humble Bundles, or just knowing what enworld/reddit threads to avoid.

 

[Umbran]

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?

Never mind if you "must".
The bigger question is why wouldn't you?
Like I'm actually going to go through the pain in the neck to hide the fact?

 

[TwoSix]

Never mind if you "must".
The bigger question is why wouldn't you?
Like I'm actually going to go through the pain in the neck to hide the fact?

This.

I don't think you need some kind of formal announcement or anything, but going to any sort of effort to disguise what you're doing just seems counterproductive.

 

[Li Shenron]

I do tell my players, and I have many reasons to do so!

1) Some players might have played it already with another group, or even DM it. Which could even mean that they would rather not want to play it again.

2) They might want to avoid casually reading information about the adventure ahead.

3) They might want to instead read some preliminary info and make new characters or character updates more appropriate.

 

[TiQuinn]

This.

I don't think you need some kind of formal announcement or anything, but going to any sort of effort to disguise what you're doing just seems counterproductive.

I don’t know that not telling players the adventure we were playing was ever really an effort.

There’s a big difference between telling people you’re playing Rise of Tiamat versus a one or two pager, and for the vast majority of my time as a DM or player, adventures have trended towards the smaller side; not the big books common to the 5e era.

 

[payn]

Im a bit all or nothing on published adventures so I tell them what we are playing. For example, if I go west marches sandbox, I wont be using published adventures but making up my own adventures. In my PF1 AP days, I would change up a good amount of the material. If my players were curious, and often they were, Id tell them what I adjusted, changed, removed, added after we completed the module.

Must, as in an unwritten rule I suppose is a bit strong. Though, I play with folks that are often interested in GMing themselves so not running into issues of overlap, and talking about how the sausage is made is always on the table. There are, of course, a few players that dont care and just show up for a game. They simply dont ask questions.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

As a GM who has often stripped adventures down or heavily modified them? No, you don't need to tell them what adventure you're running.

I think it's fair to pitch the general idea and theme of what you want to run, but with new people telling them I'm running "Menace in Otari"? NOPE.

I read about a fair amount of GM bashing and how awful GM's are but there are more horrible players than GM's...BY FAR.

I bring this up because I've had players get access to the adventure I was running, read it and then try to say that I was "cheating" by making changes to the adventure. Or use that knowledge to their advantage during the game.

It is one of the reasons why I haven't played in so long not because I lack the desire but because screening for decent players is TIRING. Once I get a decent group going I've got no problem telling them exactly what I want to run but If I'm running for new people? Nah.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

None of my players buy, read, or even know any adventures in print so I could tell them, but it's not like it makes a difference. Basically the equivalent of me saying, hey guys I'm running The Circumflex of Spiral Aardvarks. They would be like, okay cool.

 

[TwoSix]

I don’t know that not telling players the adventure we were playing was ever really an effort.

There’s a big difference between telling people you’re playing Rise of Tiamat versus a one or two pager, and for the vast majority of my time as a DM or player, adventures have trended towards the smaller side; not the big books common to the 5e era.

I virtually never run published adventures, so I'm kinda guessing.

I'm just generally in favor of full transparency as to what's going on in the game.

 

[DragonLancer]

Yes and no.

If we're talking a published campaign, then I will tell them the name. No reason not to. It does give some ideas. At present I am running a D&D 2024 campaign using Ghosts of Saltmarsh as the base plus additional scenarios and some plans for the future with specific character backgrounds. By the name I suggested they be aware that it will feature a fair bit of nautical flavour but warned that they will have to discover whether the "ghosts" of the title are literal or figurative. I feel that is all they need to know.

Personally when it comes to individual adventures I drop in that they don 't need to know. It spoils the surprise. One of my players does play occasionally with another group so if I think he might have played a published adventure I will just check the name with him first but so far no.

Realistically though I don't see why you should need to tell them. Maybe it's something of the newer RPG generation but we never needed to do that back in the old days so I don't see really why it's considered anything important now.