Mimics, mimics everywhere is a sign of a bad DM who can’t create tension without bullshit paranoia, or a personal grudge.
Unless the table signed up for that kind of adventure, the challenges should be achievable within the party’s abilities, eg “Oh if only you could speak with animals you could have foiled the BBEG’s plans”
I mean, the same could be said of GMs that run a module without telling the table they’re running a module “to keep you from looking it up”, etc. Personally, I flat-out tell my players I’ll be running a certain module and that I’ll be considering it like jazz does sheet music. In fact, when I ran Xanathar’s arc after it’s release, the silent business partner to his faction was an ages-old black market syndicate headed by a mimic mafia (with changelings as their juvenile stage, tasked with learning humanoid ways via a sort of rumspringa).
Establishing that not only can anything be a mimic, but the resonant fact that said mimics were more interested in observing rather than mindlessly ambushing outright was far more paranoia-inducing than any stereotypical expectation, NGL. It wasn’t long before the party was all but wishing for the wardrobe/carriage/over-large chest/ornate tome to just attack and get it over with. 🤣🤘🏼
I’m reading your comment and it really doesn’t say anything about why not telling people what module it is, is bad. You just talked about something you did in one of your sessions, not the supposed bad thing. I took am curious as to why not giving the module is a “bad GM”, it seems that if you don’t want anyone entering the game with advanced knowledge or an advantage on things that’d be a no-brainer
It’s not the action that’s the problem, but the motive. It’s fine not to tell your players, but it’s a problem not to tell your players because you think they’ll cheat if they know. One is inaction, the other is paranoia. If the GM doesn’t trust the players, the game will be shit.
Ok. So WHY is it bad that GMs don’t want their players to look up the module. That’s the part nobody is understanding. If you missed the last sentence of my comment…
if you don’t want anyone entering the game with advanced knowledge or an advantage on things that’d be a no-brainer
No, I didn’t miss any of your comment, thanks, and relying on hyperbole to support your argument (eg. “nobody”) isn’t the best. If you personally prefer to treat your players as maladjusted toddlers and assume they’re better off with you “in charge”, I hope you find a decent group soon (and I hope anyone who unknowingly sits at this sort of table has better luck next time).
Again, for those in the back: removing players’ agency is no way to begin a gaming group/campaign/session, and the same goes for assuming they’re out to fuck with your precious plans. The whole hobby is rooted in communication, so maybe try that first. 🤦🏽♂️
I don’t know why you answered the question with so much animosity, but thank you for the answer, because none of that was in your original comment.
I don’t currently treat my players like anything because I don’t have players. I’ve been wanting to get into it and was asking a question of someone who seemed to have more experience than me. Thanks for being so kind and helpful to a new member of the community seeking information 👍🏼
Are you? Several people asked you to explain and even then it took 3 responses for you to actually do so (while being a condescending asshole about it).
I’d argue that it’s more fun to bury the lead on a module/set dungeon, to prevent any (even subconscious) meta-gaming from upsetting the play between more/less seasoned players, but I do like the “jazz and sheet music” analogy.
If someone clicks/is told you’re using Tomb of Horrors, they’ll know more than a player who is experiencing that for the first time organically. Obviously applying that and not breaking PC-player knowledge divide is the players issue to maintain, but they’ll still have that seed lurking in their brain about the upcoming set pieces
And, I don’t necessarily disagree, though it’s the latter half of the statement that clarifies the problematic thinking: removing player agency is not a good first step.
Fair point, though I can only assume that it won’t be long before people are mispronouncing it IRL, for reasons not unlike “decimate” vs. “devastate”. 🫣 Ah, the consequences of underfunded education at the national scale. 🥹
I’m on team “tell the players”, personally, because it lets the players customise their characters for the module. A group for Wilds Beyond the Witchlight are going to be different from Descent Into Avernus, for example.
(Of course, if a player decides to put Doom Guy in a fairy tale, that’s perfectly fine, but it should be their choice.)
Also, a person who knows about Tomb of Horrors will figure it out pretty quickly during gameplay anyway because of those set pieces you mentioned, so it doesn’t matter if you didn’t tell them what it was. Heck, they might even have bowed out so they don’t ruin things with their meta-knowledge, if only they knew what they were going to be playing.
They are funny as memes, but beginner DMs might not be able to tell the difference.
I feel the same way about the False Hydra. As a recounted creepypasta it sounds cool. As an actual TTRPG enemy it’s unworkable. Either the adventure will be very scripted, because the DM has to pretty much allow you to perceive it, or it will be completely unfair and insufferable, because you’ll need to constantly pretend you don’t notice it and that you forget things as it decimates the party. It’s not a good D&D enemy, it doesn’t even fit the rules of D&D well. Mind effect with no saves unless you cover your ears? C’mon…
It’s also a quick way to turn a regular player into a murderhobo, because if can’t trust anything not to be hostile, the best approach is to attack first.
Mimics, mimics everywhere is a sign of a bad DM who can’t create tension without bullshit paranoia, or a personal grudge.
Unless the table signed up for that kind of adventure, the challenges should be achievable within the party’s abilities, eg “Oh if only you could speak with animals you could have foiled the BBEG’s plans”
I mean, the same could be said of GMs that run a module without telling the table they’re running a module “to keep you from looking it up”, etc. Personally, I flat-out tell my players I’ll be running a certain module and that I’ll be considering it like jazz does sheet music. In fact, when I ran Xanathar’s arc after it’s release, the silent business partner to his faction was an ages-old black market syndicate headed by a mimic mafia (with changelings as their juvenile stage, tasked with learning humanoid ways via a sort of rumspringa).
Establishing that not only can anything be a mimic, but the resonant fact that said mimics were more interested in observing rather than mindlessly ambushing outright was far more paranoia-inducing than any stereotypical expectation, NGL. It wasn’t long before the party was all but wishing for the wardrobe/carriage/over-large chest/ornate tome to just attack and get it over with. 🤣🤘🏼
edit: spelling, clarity
Why is this a problem?
The rest of the quote you omitted answers your question.
I’m reading your comment and it really doesn’t say anything about why not telling people what module it is, is bad. You just talked about something you did in one of your sessions, not the supposed bad thing. I took am curious as to why not giving the module is a “bad GM”, it seems that if you don’t want anyone entering the game with advanced knowledge or an advantage on things that’d be a no-brainer
It’s not the action that’s the problem, but the motive. It’s fine not to tell your players, but it’s a problem not to tell your players because you think they’ll cheat if they know. One is inaction, the other is paranoia. If the GM doesn’t trust the players, the game will be shit.
It’s in the first sentence, FFS.
🤦🏽♂️
…
Ok. So WHY is it bad that GMs don’t want their players to look up the module. That’s the part nobody is understanding. If you missed the last sentence of my comment…
Why is this a problem.
No, I didn’t miss any of your comment, thanks, and relying on hyperbole to support your argument (eg. “nobody”) isn’t the best. If you personally prefer to treat your players as maladjusted toddlers and assume they’re better off with you “in charge”, I hope you find a decent group soon (and I hope anyone who unknowingly sits at this sort of table has better luck next time).
Again, for those in the back: removing players’ agency is no way to begin a gaming group/campaign/session, and the same goes for assuming they’re out to fuck with your precious plans. The whole hobby is rooted in communication, so maybe try that first. 🤦🏽♂️
I don’t know why you answered the question with so much animosity, but thank you for the answer, because none of that was in your original comment.
I don’t currently treat my players like anything because I don’t have players. I’ve been wanting to get into it and was asking a question of someone who seemed to have more experience than me. Thanks for being so kind and helpful to a new member of the community seeking information 👍🏼
He’s right you didn’t explain why not telling players what module you’re using to keep them from looking it up is a problem.
Are you high?
Are you? Several people asked you to explain and even then it took 3 responses for you to actually do so (while being a condescending asshole about it).
I’d argue that it’s more fun to bury the lead on a module/set dungeon, to prevent any (even subconscious) meta-gaming from upsetting the play between more/less seasoned players, but I do like the “jazz and sheet music” analogy.
If someone clicks/is told you’re using Tomb of Horrors, they’ll know more than a player who is experiencing that for the first time organically. Obviously applying that and not breaking PC-player knowledge divide is the players issue to maintain, but they’ll still have that seed lurking in their brain about the upcoming set pieces
Lede*
And, I don’t necessarily disagree, though it’s the latter half of the statement that clarifies the problematic thinking: removing player agency is not a good first step.
Lead*
Fair point, though I can only assume that it won’t be long before people are mispronouncing it IRL, for reasons not unlike “decimate” vs. “devastate”. 🫣 Ah, the consequences of underfunded education at the national scale. 🥹
I’m on team “tell the players”, personally, because it lets the players customise their characters for the module. A group for Wilds Beyond the Witchlight are going to be different from Descent Into Avernus, for example.
(Of course, if a player decides to put Doom Guy in a fairy tale, that’s perfectly fine, but it should be their choice.)
Also, a person who knows about Tomb of Horrors will figure it out pretty quickly during gameplay anyway because of those set pieces you mentioned, so it doesn’t matter if you didn’t tell them what it was. Heck, they might even have bowed out so they don’t ruin things with their meta-knowledge, if only they knew what they were going to be playing.
Wow, that jazz simile. Love it!
Still, memes likes this one actually breed such GMs, because somehow they think it’s funny.
They are funny as memes, but beginner DMs might not be able to tell the difference.
I feel the same way about the False Hydra. As a recounted creepypasta it sounds cool. As an actual TTRPG enemy it’s unworkable. Either the adventure will be very scripted, because the DM has to pretty much allow you to perceive it, or it will be completely unfair and insufferable, because you’ll need to constantly pretend you don’t notice it and that you forget things as it decimates the party. It’s not a good D&D enemy, it doesn’t even fit the rules of D&D well. Mind effect with no saves unless you cover your ears? C’mon…
Can’t trust any damn furniture!
The mimic table ate the contract.
It’s also a quick way to turn a regular player into a murderhobo, because if can’t trust anything not to be hostile, the best approach is to attack first.