Quote from: Exploderwizard;706360Still trying to locate a definition for "transperany".

No luck so far.

Spelling flames rule

Quote from: Exploderwizard;706360Still trying to locate a definition for "transperany".

No luck so far.

Transperany = The tyranny of transparency demanding players. :cool:

IE: "I am oppressed under your mad transperany! I must be free!"

Quote from: Omega;706373Transperany = The tyranny of transparency demanding players. :cool:

IE: "I am oppressed under your mad transperany! I must be free!"

Thanks!  With a working definition this will be much easier to discuss.

Players engaging in ruthless transperany simply have no trust in their GM, either because the GM hasn't earned their trust or they have played in shitty games and now no longer trust anyone not to be a dick.

This is purely a people problem and likely because there is no honest out of game discussion going on between the participants.

I will generally discuss the whys and hows of campaign events after the campaign is over should anyone be interested. While the game is ongoing, such things are for the players to discover during actual play.

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.

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.

Its a typical badly thought out poll with no real way of determining what it is you voting for.

I tend to have information such as monster stats, spell rules et al out in the open if players want to look at them. I typically do not fudge so that's not an issue. Its worth noting that most printed stats are averages, players knowing the stats of an average goblin I find acceptable, the stats of 'Kol Valad, Goblin Chef Extraordinaire' they don't get to know (although I tend to be pretty liberal about throwing out things like AC to speed up the game).

NPC motivations on the other hand I might share after the campaign is finished, but never actually during the game itself.

Although on occasions I have had players take over running NPCs if the party is split or something similar - which obviously changes the information given.


There is a fine line, as a Player I find really tedious GMs who act like your character has been in some sort of coma before the games starts and refuse to even tell you what the city you grew up in was like. On the other-hand, I would not want to suddenly find I had the ability to mind read every NPC I met, that would remove any sense of reality. At the end of the day it comes down to immersion, realism, speed, playability and trust.

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 basically shut down meta gaming at my table. The players only know what they need to in order to run their PC. For instance, if an Elf PC walks past a secret door (and isn't actively looking) I make a SILENT roll to determine if it was noticed.  The players aren't given the meta data.

Why would a player want to be burdened with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with running their character?

I'll answer questions the players ask me during the game, sure. I'll try to keep it short and only answer what their characters would know, either individually or collectively.

Likewise, I'll talk about stuff outside of the game if I am asked, absolutely. Whether some possibilities exist in the campaign, if there's an explanation for what happened last game session, even to reveal some stuff that would have no bearing whatsoever into the future events of the game, I could do that, yes.

I might provide some meta advice between games too, especially if the players are noobs, and they don't know what iron spikes are for, as an example. I will try to convey this type of information via role playing and via the game world itself whenever possible, however. Like rumours talking about how the depths are more and more dangerous the deeper you venture within the dungeon and all that.

Fundamentally, I welcome all discussion about the campaign. No problem. But if you ask me a question and I tell you "sorry, there is an explanation, yes, but I can't tell you what it is at this point", you've got to trust me there actually IS a valid reason for me to tell you that.

Quote from: Lord Hobie;706366Spelling flames rule

Eh, some people have allot of free time

I can definitely see sharing details after the game or campaign is over. It would similar to watching the extras and director commentary. What really surprised me was that so many games appeared to involve completely open notes and other details during the game.

I suppose it wouldn't be such a big deal if the players and gm were holding a more authorial, cooperative story telling stance more than immersion or competitive game play.

I sense a multi-legged shaggy beast arriving in our future... :cool:

Quote from: Opaopajr;706479I sense a multi-legged shaggy beast arriving in our future... :cool:

You lost me...

I'll share after something unchangeable happens or at the end of a chapter.

E.g. "Don't feel too bad about losing that fight. You were way outclassed.  I expected you to run, honestly."

I do this because the "we couldn't run because..." feedback is invaluable.

Feedback afterwards can be very usefull for figuring out what you might be doing wrong as a DM or a player.

Quote from: Omega;706519Feedback afterwards can be very usefull for figuring out what you might be doing wrong as a DM or a player.

Agreed. And not necessarily wrong-wrong, but wrong for this particular group or set of players, or this particular game setup. I always ask how the players liked the game after the session, and as a player, I always (try to) give some feedback.

I'll share rules stuff like monster and NPC stats, skill DCs etc, if it equates to something the PCs would know. That extends to things like knowing I'm rolling encounter checks, and the chances of a random encounter - the PCs may reasonably know that the area is dangerous, and roughly *how* dangerous. Likewise I try to give a sense of PC competency so players have an idea where their characters stand. In some games it's obvious; for 4e I did this chart for the players - http://frloudwater.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/pc-level-in-terms-of-in-world-power.html

Sharing purely metagame stuff around encounter design or campaign structure tends to destroy player enjoyment, as in JA's experience with the random sewers, and I'll avoid doing that. Very occasionally a player will get the wrong end of the stick and mistakenly complain about eg railroading or PC powerlessness because they've made incorrect assumptions about what's going on behind the (non-existent) screen. If it's egregious I may be tempted to correct them and explain what really happened. This may hurt the game for everyone else though so it's probably not a good idea, but if a player has really annoyed me  I may need to do it for my own peace of mind. I don't think I have had a serious case of that in ten years, though.

Quote from: Opaopajr;706479I sense a multi-legged shaggy beast arriving in our future... :cool:

Nah. The cute little guy only comes running when he is called with a single L.

This poor allot is just hanging out feeling lonely waiting for his ment.

Transparency as far as rules implementations are a must for me - I don't want my stuff functioning and malfunctioning at GM whim. If the rules implementations stick to the RAW, or whatever house rules we agree to, I'm fine. This also assumes that the GM has the right to make spot rulings on the spot which we will discuss later if they become problematic.

Things should be opaque as far as setting. It's the GMs world and part of the contact is trusting him/her.

I don't mind monster stats and even names being kept from me, so long as the rules/stat block is revealed as we need them and engage with those elements. For example - if I whack at the monster, I should be told the AC. If I get poisoned, I get to know the save DC and how the poison works, etc.