This is kind of a lead-off from my railroad thread. In a PbP game it’s generally upfront what published adventure is being run so folks can choose if they want to play a certain scenario. No railroad and no backing out because you know what you’re signing up for.
How many of you that run face to face games tell your players which published adventure you’re running? Do you tell them knowing it might spoil a surprise? Do you keep it to yourself with the chance a player will not want in?
I myself have never ran a published adventure, but I do know that if I did I would not tell the players what to expect in most circumstances.
The thing about DMing to me, is that when you run a campaign you are doing it for the players...so if you know what kind of things your players like to focus on, you can spend more time focusing on those things to keep them engaged. If none of the players like social encounters and want to just murder-hobo, I'd probably change some of the stuff in the given module to accommodate for that. More or less I find that giving players too many specifics removes a lot of the challenge of being a DM, since knowing what to expect is sort of a form of railroading in that the players will just want to optimally play the story while showing off their characters in the process. Now that can probably be a lot of fun still, but I think that it makes for less memorable moments for your players when they know too much.
Now all that said, if this was a last minute group of people that were just itching to play D&D I'd probably just run something everyone was familiar with that they knew would be fun.
I usually tell them afterwards which module I'm running. DM's rarely run a module as written and they're usually tied in to fit with the larger campaign/world. They always require some fixing and modifying in one way or another. So if a player would say he thought X was gonna happen... Well I can just change it without issue.
I would certainly want players to have some idea of what they're getting themselves into for any game and, generally speaking, I wouldn't trust my own opinion on whether they'd be into it or not. Sure, I'd be 80% sure, but not 100%.
If I wanted to run a campaign centered around a module, I would definitely be clear that I was running a printed module and give them the broad strokes of the type of story (e.g. "You're trapped in the Underdark and trying to escape. It's about survival in a dark and disturbing world." or "You'll be investigating the attack on a town by a powerful group, which might require some subterfuge." or "You're pulled into a heist in Waterdeep"). I would provide more details and ideas as to how their characters might fit into the world. It's a lot more likely to be a successful campaign if they can knowingly build a character who will have a connection with the storyline. With a free-form campaign where you haven't setup an arc to start, you can build the story around the characters. That's harder to do with a module (although you can certainly mold it around their actions and preferences, it just has less flexibility).
If I was just slotting in a module into an ongoing campaign, I doubt I'd bring it up. I'd modify it to fit into the campaign as just another arc.
Also, truthfully, players aren't stupid. It's not going to take them long to figure out you're playing Curse of Strahd or one of the bigger 5e modules. So at some point you have to ask yourself: "how much is obfuscation actually going to get me". With a smaller module slotted into an ongoing story, you could much more easily get away with it.
Of course I tell my players which published adventure I am using when I am using one, why wouldn't I? Especially given that none of my players happen to be blind, so they'll see the adventure book sitting in front of me at the table.
As for preventing "spoilers", I find that is best done by informing the players of the adventure intended to be run, and the players being forthcoming about having played through that already and how long ago it was/how well they remember things - and with that information I can choose to either re-write portions of the adventure to keep them on their toes, or just run a different adventure that they haven't played.
And I would absolutely never deliberately withhold information about an adventure I intend to run as a means to get a player to play something that they would say "no" to if asked - that's a recipe for disastrous sessions and dissolved play-groups.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is kind of a lead-off from my railroad thread. In a PbP game it’s generally upfront what published adventure is being run so folks can choose if they want to play a certain scenario. No railroad and no backing out because you know what you’re signing up for.
How many of you that run face to face games tell your players which published adventure you’re running? Do you tell them knowing it might spoil a surprise? Do you keep it to yourself with the chance a player will not want in?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I myself have never ran a published adventure, but I do know that if I did I would not tell the players what to expect in most circumstances.
The thing about DMing to me, is that when you run a campaign you are doing it for the players...so if you know what kind of things your players like to focus on, you can spend more time focusing on those things to keep them engaged. If none of the players like social encounters and want to just murder-hobo, I'd probably change some of the stuff in the given module to accommodate for that. More or less I find that giving players too many specifics removes a lot of the challenge of being a DM, since knowing what to expect is sort of a form of railroading in that the players will just want to optimally play the story while showing off their characters in the process. Now that can probably be a lot of fun still, but I think that it makes for less memorable moments for your players when they know too much.
Now all that said, if this was a last minute group of people that were just itching to play D&D I'd probably just run something everyone was familiar with that they knew would be fun.
I usually tell them afterwards which module I'm running. DM's rarely run a module as written and they're usually tied in to fit with the larger campaign/world. They always require some fixing and modifying in one way or another. So if a player would say he thought X was gonna happen... Well I can just change it without issue.
I would certainly want players to have some idea of what they're getting themselves into for any game and, generally speaking, I wouldn't trust my own opinion on whether they'd be into it or not. Sure, I'd be 80% sure, but not 100%.
If I wanted to run a campaign centered around a module, I would definitely be clear that I was running a printed module and give them the broad strokes of the type of story (e.g. "You're trapped in the Underdark and trying to escape. It's about survival in a dark and disturbing world." or "You'll be investigating the attack on a town by a powerful group, which might require some subterfuge." or "You're pulled into a heist in Waterdeep"). I would provide more details and ideas as to how their characters might fit into the world. It's a lot more likely to be a successful campaign if they can knowingly build a character who will have a connection with the storyline. With a free-form campaign where you haven't setup an arc to start, you can build the story around the characters. That's harder to do with a module (although you can certainly mold it around their actions and preferences, it just has less flexibility).
If I was just slotting in a module into an ongoing campaign, I doubt I'd bring it up. I'd modify it to fit into the campaign as just another arc.
Also, truthfully, players aren't stupid. It's not going to take them long to figure out you're playing Curse of Strahd or one of the bigger 5e modules. So at some point you have to ask yourself: "how much is obfuscation actually going to get me". With a smaller module slotted into an ongoing story, you could much more easily get away with it.
Of course I tell my players which published adventure I am using when I am using one, why wouldn't I? Especially given that none of my players happen to be blind, so they'll see the adventure book sitting in front of me at the table.
As for preventing "spoilers", I find that is best done by informing the players of the adventure intended to be run, and the players being forthcoming about having played through that already and how long ago it was/how well they remember things - and with that information I can choose to either re-write portions of the adventure to keep them on their toes, or just run a different adventure that they haven't played.
And I would absolutely never deliberately withhold information about an adventure I intend to run as a means to get a player to play something that they would say "no" to if asked - that's a recipe for disastrous sessions and dissolved play-groups.