OC Moonwood Settlements (you might not know of)

[I-KP]

Much ado about nowt.

[kid]

suprisingly... i kind of find myself agreeing with Ronan/Kid/DarkMystic... Meh.

What so surprising about that... *eyes narrow*
What exactly ... are you implying here MISTER?!

[Blindhamsterman]

*gives kid a hug*

[johnlewismcleod]

The thing is that these areas will likely be in soon and stripping the mystery from them OOC in advance is a bit off-putting.

Having said that, I just noticed how MS server posts loads of info on their areas for all players to peruse OOC in preparation for entering the fray there. I'm not sure how I feel about it after reading a small bit of the MS info.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all, as long as the info is appropriately vague.

Such info is best dispensed by DM staff IMO, however.

It's a touchy subject, and not surprisingly potentially inflammatory.

[Basilica]

It seemed to me that all that was done was cite books and canonical sources. Anyone can clearly go and read those (we aren't considering a "might be metagaming to read books" prohibition, I certainly hope!).

We do also link to a FR information aggregators like wiki elsewhere in the player guide and lore information forums as I recall.

[kid]

PLAYERS SHOULD BE MINDLESS IDIOTS!

"what is that huge monstorsty!'
"that is a troll my yonng lad I have never fought it but word is only fire or acid can bring it down"
(reasoble meta)

"what is that huge monstrosty!"
"that is a troll my young lad, it has +9 ab and evil crits, but with my combat expretiece and your arrows I am sure we can bring it down.... though 20gp for an acid flask is a but much for only 19xp we will get for it"
(fucked up meta)

I believe our players know alot of things thier toons do not.
somehow we manage.
I am sure we would overcome the aweful crysis of....

SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THE MOONWOOD...!
MUHAHAHAHHAH!

[Ithildur]

*ignores Kid's usual productive and thoughtful posting*

It seemed to me that all that was done was cite books and canonical sources. Anyone can clearly go and read those (we aren't considering a "might be metagaming to read books" prohibition, I certainly hope!)

We do also link to a FR information aggregators like wiki elsewhere in the player guide and lore information forums as I recall.

That's completely fine, but it's always been my understanding that such posts are posted in places like the Realmslore forums, players handbook for basic info, etc.

It's also been my understanding that threads like 'general information about the Marches/Welcome to region X' which contain info that's implied to be commonly available IC knowledge are posted by DMs or approved by DMs. Cloud herself has a thread like this in this very same forum, but it's from when she actually was a DM on TSM I believe.

The information here also contained some info that would have a rather huge impact on PC's RP if it were known to them. Other than the Eilistraeean place, we've also gone to great lengths to clarify whether information about a certain settlement in the Moonwood is secret or not; obscure info on other secret/semi secret places in the highly dangerous and less than frequently traveled (by outsiders) Moonwood ought not to be treated as if it were common knowledge imo.

I'm going to be a bit blunt here; I've seen rampant metagaming in TSM the past few months by a few players whom I won't name, and I've found myself occasionally slipping into it as well inadvertently, partially due to the casual stance I've seen towards the practice. I don't mean the silly/obvious stuff; there is a difference between seeing an orc and knowing IC 'oh, that's an orc' vs 'what is that??' and stuff like 'Drizzt is best friends with Alustriel'. I'd like to see improvement in this area.

[kid]

its not a thread by a TSM dm, nor is it treated as such...
as long as a DM doesnt tell you its there.... its all in the realm of the maybe.

So the reaction is at most...

"Hmm... interesting, I wonder what my DM team will say about that..."

and thats it. at least... thats my take on the matter. *shrug*

[johnlewismcleod]

It's fairly common OOC knowledge these areas are staged for imminent inclusion in TSM, Basil...and can be reasonably assumed the post was intended to reveal details about them before they are deployed.

While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, OOC revealing info and research pointers to areas that are likely plot related is uncomfortable for many of us to put it mildly.

Granted, areas are not generally a great secret, but if the research was to lead to the outing of NPC's tied to the areas that could be unfortunate. As Ith pointed out it's safest to let server DM's dispense the info.

My initial reaction was very negative to this post as well. After reflection I realized the author was likely just trying to be pro-active and helpful...but I think it's important that we all realize there are two sides to this coin.

Those that questioned the "why" of the post were not being "pathetic flamers" or "insane", as some have suggested. These players were merely cognizant of plots currently underway that could be undermined if we are all not careful to separate OOC knowledge from IC knowledge...and dispensing road maps to OOC knowledge is quite naturally a sensitive subject (whether intentional or not).

After further consideration, I think it's a "no harm, no foul"...but it's definitely not as black and white as many have advocated here.

I don't mean the silly/obvious stuff; there is a difference between seeing an orc and knowing IC 'oh, that's an orc' vs 'what is that??' and stuff like 'Drizzt is friends with Alustriel'. I'd like to see improvement in this area.

This.

[kid]

Meh, without you telling me it might have some connection to our plots I wouldn't have even thought about it. and I think that if its knowledge that can be found in books its silly to try and hide it.

Players can know it. how they RP is another matter.
we should not allow our toons to know things our players know. period.

the way to do it is not withholding information (which is free for all, not talking about diracte plot info from behind the cover of the DM screen) simply cause thats impossible. infact I would have little interest in this thread and would have hardly noticed it if not for people crying bloody murder. I would gaze at it a moment say... Hmm... and move on.

I think that trying to hide information of this nature is not the way to avoid meta.
but... thats my take on it. I guess i'd rather try and trust my players or even correct/ask them if I see some RP that seems a bit off.

[Swift]

I see no problem here.

Why?

Because this is all public knowledge for those who care to find the books and look it up. If you use the knowledge in game, that is an entirely other thing. It is not like we are going to lock these areas away if you don't conform to anyones specific idea of how your character should be RPed. Once new areas go in, they will be free for everyone to explore.

Just don't meta, simple. If you see blatent meta, report it. We as DMs cant be everywhere at once.

For those concerned about relevance to current plots, I would not be at all surprised if the areas do not make it in until the current plot is virtually over anyway. Worry about that their relevance to current plots once they are in, rather than before.

[kid]

Damn. I hate when people articulate better than I do.
I hate english.

[Keryn]

Ith and JLM have said it all in their previous posts, so I'd just like to add something.

No one is talking about hiding information here. Just as you stated, anyone can research and learn about them, on other hand, the first post had in its title that it was an IC post. From that moment on I was really unsure of what this was meant to be. Then were you aware of some of these locations? Well I wasn't until very recently when I took a building project in which I stumbled over them while I did my research (and I'm tempted to say nor did Cloud until recently when she found this info as well).

What I'm trying to say here, is that maybe the surprise factor was somewhat removed, and on other hand, as a DM i got tired of listening players telling me how things in canon are different, and that I was DMing them differently. We all try to stay faithful to some stuff in canon but other stuff we take turns and make it our own way due to some problems or necessity. Releasing information in a server's forum IMO, leads a player, any player, specially new players avid for new information about the place they play in to think it is information they should know about a certain location. Specially when it is branded with the IC mark in its title.

I'm sure, CD had the best of intentions, I'm completely sure, she only tried to be pro-active. Though maybe did not consider the impact a post like this would have in the players, even unconsciously.

Its obvious for all of us, that when we don't know something its easier to play then when we have to constantly fight to pretend we don't know it. Its simply easier. And that is why I think this sort of information should be released by DMs, when they think its needed or valuable.

CD wrote. This post was to:

1. Roll Knowledge: local lore..hello?

2. Enhance your knowledge of the Moonwood

Plus the title stated this was IC info, until it was latter edited. If this post was done with the intent for folks to roll local knowledge IG by their own and find out about these locations. Its overstepping the DM realm, in my opinion of course. And hence Ith's question, about the purpose of the post.

Is it some folks here "flaming" CD, or are some people here simply trying to close their eyes to something rather obvious, and instead of bringing that concern to CD, pretend it isn't happening? On my part I surely did not flame CD, and I should add I spoke with CD on IRC regarding her initial post, and a very friendly and mature manner. Which is how I think folks should always act. Well at least the title now was changed to Out of Character.

Also, having information available on the Internet and offer it (making its access easy) in the forum of the specific server, only pushes players to know stuff that otherwise they would most likely never find out about. After all you are only curious about something you already know something.

Anyway... I'm not sure anymore about anything. Something that seemed rather obvious to me, suddenly it isn't and I ask myself if its Ith and JLM and myself on the wrong here.

[Heero]

I see no problem here.

Why?

Because this is all public knowledge for those who care to find the books and look it up. If you use the knowledge in game, that is an entirely other thing. It is not like we are going to lock these areas away if you don't conform to anyones specific idea of how your character should be RPed. Once new areas go in, they will be free for everyone to explore.

Just don't meta, simple. If you see blatent meta, report it. We as DMs cant be everywhere at once.

For those concerned about relevance to current plots, I would not be at all surprised if the areas do not make it in until the current plot is virtually over anyway. Worry about that their relevance to current plots once they are in, rather than before.

+1 (hows that for articulate, kid?)

[Ithildur]

Keryn and I are not saying this info should be purged from people's minds via lobotomy or that the internet and books should be taken away from people; rather IC should be kept IC, and ooc as ooc.

Handling ooc information potentially relevant to the campaign as if it were ambiguously IC leads to metagaming. There's a separate forum if the intent is to ooc share lore on FR for general enjoyment or even fleshing out ideas based on the lore, including obscure/sensitive info as long as that info isn't used to metagame. If the intent however is to share obscure/potentially sensitive info IC 'live' as it were then it seems to me that needs to be clear via 'this is DM approved general knowledge/knowledge local dc x'.

I'd think that preventively clarifying things beforehand is preferable to waiting until people metagame (either intentionally or not) and then reporting them. I'd far prefer to do the former than the latter.

I will state again that I think CD is a nice person and I appreciate her initial intent; I do not read into her OP that she was trying to 'pull' anything here purposefully. But I still stand by my thought this needed to be clarified especially in light of some trends I've seen lately.