http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?707803-Too-much-GM-transparency

The results in the above thread were really fascinating to me since its so completely alien to how I've ever played. Does anyone here game with everything lain out and open for player perusal? I wouldn't have thought it was as common as it seems to be.

Honestly, it sounds a little dull. As a player I don't want to know the mechanical "guts" of the game or when the GM is fudging or whatever. Seeing the oppositions character sheets feels like cheating. I want to learn about the world in character, not read it.

Eh, sometimes the DM has to say "guys, I didn't prepare an adventure in the woods for tonight, I just set up the tower you were planning to assault".

Also, inexperienced players genrally get an OOC warning about random encounters and other such things.

In my experience a lot of GMs seem to like to spill the beans about their carefully constructed plans... particularly when they don't quite come on stage as hoped.
Our Earthdawn GM really can't seem to resist that urge... though when he starts in I'll often cover my ears and scream 'lalala I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!
Usually it's AFTER we went through some situation... he'll spill the bits of lore we failed to uncover. I'd rather he didn't even do that... but a few weeks ago he casually dropped the news that the person at the center of my PC's core quest... that has been going on for a couple years now... is dead.
WTF!!! DO NOT TELL ME THAT STUFF!

Otherwise he's a great GM... but he'll drop spoilers about movies, books, TV shows without warning... and I've yet to shout him off doing that.

On the other hand... I think it was perfectly fine and good to warn the new player in our Pathfinder game about the deadly nature of The Tomb Of Horrors module beforehand... so the inevitable TPK wouldn't be too much of a shock.

Quote from: Simlasa;706203In my experience a lot of GMs seem to like to spill the beans about their carefully constructed plans... particularly when they don't quite come on stage as hoped.
Our Earthdawn GM really can't seem to resist that urge... though when he starts in I'll often cover my ears and scream 'lalala I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!
Usually it's AFTER we went through some situation... he'll spill the bits of lore we failed to uncover. I'd rather he didn't even do that... but a few weeks ago he casually dropped the news that the person at the center of my PC's core quest... that has been going on for a couple years now... is dead.
WTF!!! DO NOT TELL ME THAT STUFF!

Otherwise he's a great GM... but he'll drop spoilers about movies, books, TV shows without warning... and I've yet to shout him off doing that.

On the other hand... I think it was perfectly fine and good to warn the new player in our Pathfinder game about the deadly nature of The Tomb Of Horrors module beforehand... so the inevitable TPK wouldn't be too much of a shock.

Yeah, I guess its not a strictly black and white issue.

I will very seldom share OOC details. Usually if a Campaign ends prematurely and I am pretty sure we won't revisit it I will ask the players if they want to know any details.

I will offer guesses to why a certain NPC or thing happened. Seldom is it the direct answer but a list of possibilities. Like why did the Mayor lie well could have been his family was held hostage by the bad guys or because he is a coward or because etc...

I usually let the players decide if they want to know and seldom offer the info. I don't want the players to be too frustrated by something eating at them and as long as the info has little impact or the possibility is the Character (not player) could have put 2 and 2 together I might tell them.

Mostly I think it destroys suspension of disbelief in the world/game.

Just my thoughts

I generally don't share additional world details, or campaign details OOC. I leave it up to the players to discover as much or as little as they are interested in about the world, the kingdom, or the campaign setting they are in.

They do this by exploring the world, and talking to, or listening to, the natives of the area they are in, or interested in visiting. Alot of the secondary geographical or social information provided by NPCs is inaccurate, or false, or outdated as well, so the only way the players can truly learn about places in the world is to visit it themselves. Since different player parties visit different locales at different times, their experiences and knowledge may vary significantly.

This adds an additional touch of mystery, adds to the significance of exploration and discovery, and generally keeps the players both inquisitive and alert.

Some players are really fanatical about DM transparency.

So it does not surprise me really.

After a session or campaign I may point out key things the players missed as examples of ways they could have been paying more attention or not being so bloodthirsty.

IE: Not searching the leaders room more after finding the obviously placed treasure chest. They totally missed the +1 dagger on the bed under the pillow.
IE: Killing the NPC who could have shown them a back entrance to the lair that would have bypassed the rather mean trap at the start. One PC down shortly thereafter.

Rare but it happens.

Quote from: Nexus;706199http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?707803-Too-much-GM-transparency

The results in the above thread were really fascinating to me since its so completely alien to how I've ever played. Does anyone here game with everything lain out and open for player perusal? I wouldn't have thought it was as common as it seems to be.

Honestly, it sounds a little dull. As a player I don't want to know the mechanical "guts" of the game or when the GM is fudging or whatever. Seeing the oppositions character sheets feels like cheating. I want to learn about the world in character, not read it.

The survey doesn't distinguish between in the game or outside of it, so...useless

Quote from: TristramEvans;706294The survey doesn't distinguish between in the game or outside of it, so...useless

Seems to be both. But the OP seems to lean to the during side rather than the after.

At the end of a one-shot, I answer any questions from the players. I don't do that during conventions, but will afterward if there was any unsolved mystery.

However, I do talk about house rules beforehand. I do mop ups at the end of fights without dice. If the end of the fight is clearly that the PCs are going to slay everything, then I just do a narrative to save time.

If I am doing a demo however, I do have lots of OOC talk about the various rules on the player or GM side during our demo session. AKA, if I am teaching OD&D, I will tell them that every "ten minutes" in the dungeon I will roll a D6 to see if wandering monsters show up to say hi.

That too. I will answer questions after a session or campaign if the players ask. Like what was going on behind the scenes that they didnt know about, but impacted them or the adventure.

Quote from: Nexus;706199The results in the above thread were really fascinating to me since its so completely alien to how I've ever played. Does anyone here game with everything lain out and open for player perusal? I wouldn't have thought it was as common as it seems to be.

I'll often pull back the curtain and crack the hood for a post mortem. It can be useful to compare notes about what the players thought they were seeing and what I was trying to show them: It lets you know what works and what doesn't; it can also help the players figure out what they did right (and what they did wrong).

But you generally don't show how the magic trick works while you're still performing the trick. My experience with that in the past has been almost universally negative.

A go to example I use is when I was running a group of PCs through the sewers beneath a city. They were having an absolute blast... right up until I made the mistake of telling them it was all being randomly generated. Their suspension of disbelief instantly vanished and what had previously been interesting and exciting became a complete slog. I eventually had to ditch the entire adventure structure and redesign it.

I don't share squat about such issues.  Ever.  There's no good reason in the world why I should discuss, OOC and ex cathedra, why certain guards have certain stats, why a party may or may not have had an easy time in that combat, or why a NPC has the motivations she does.

What I limit myself to discussing are elements that the PCs would know as a matter of course.  Someone with Current Affairs-15 may well know that the Royal Guard are all mediocre warriors because several of them tried to off the King last year.  A PC who's a sincere worshiper of the goddess Ratri would understand why there's murmuring about that priestess, because she's known to be a virgin, and priestesses of Ratri are expected to be mothers.  And, sure, a player unfamiliar with GURPS needs to know that four PCs against twenty guardsmen of mixed sword-and-board, polearms and crossbows constitute bad odds, and any experienced warrior would know that.

Most GMs I play with don't do it. One sometimes will make comments about how we did the wrong thing, and I usually bite back a comment that would be something like "nobody would ever think of that, climb out of your hermit hole and join the rest of us humans".

Still trying to locate a definition for "transperany".

No luck so far.