As a player would you be frustrated about this.

[YossarianLives]

My players. Please stay out!

Spoiler

Show

Basically the whole plot of my campaign revolves around dragons (who haven't been seen for over 10000 years) returning to the world. But I can't tell my players that they do exist or it will ruin the plot and surprise. So I've told them that dragons don't exist in my setting and they can't play any dragon related stuff. However it will be revealed that dragons do exist in the first or second session. So I'm worried that they will be angry about me lying.

As a player would you be frustrated about this?

[Knaight]

I wouldn't be, particularly. I'd be a bit unimpressed with how the information was given (just covering character restrictions while mentioning in passing that dragons haven't been around for 10,000 years and the society emerged in a particular way because of it, immediately before mentioning some other event would have done it), but that's about it.

With that said, I wouldn't be too worried about ruining the plot or the surprise. "Dragons come back" isn't all that surprising even with the claim they don't exist, and if that information is coming out in the first or second session there really has to be more to what's going on than "they exist". With more going on, just knowing that wouldn't ruin squat.

[Beta Centauri]

I wouldn't be, but I would expect your players to be.

For me, the "surprise" is never worth risking the annoyance or boredom of the players. If you told me the plot you had in mind, not only would I fully understand why I couldn't take dragon-related options, but I would make a dedicated effort to make your plot work. I strongly recommend that you just tell them the basics of the plot, and ask that they play along. If they say they won't, then they would probably have been frustrated anyway.

[hymer]

I'd consider that perfectly valid disinformation. But then again, I don't usually play anything dragon-related. I might feel more miffed if I really wanted to play a draco-something-or-other. If a player does flake somewhat, maybe they can make a new character, a dragon-realted one, after the campaign arrives at a point where it would be okay.

[Tragak]

I wouldn't be, but I would expect your players to be.

For me, the "surprise" is never worth risking the annoyance or boredom of the players. If you told me the plot you had in mind, not only would I fully understand why I couldn't take dragon-related options, but I would make a dedicated effort to make your plot work. I strongly recommend that you just tell them the basics of the plot, and ask that they play along. If they say they won't, then they would probably have been frustrated anyway.

This.

Before telling them anything negative or affirmative about anything specific (such as dragons), I would ask them what they think of large-scale spoilers in general.

[draken50]

I have avoided having dragon players in my games using a simple method.

I explain that

1) Dragon parts are used in magic
2) Dragon parts are very expensive
3) The people who want dragon parts are higher level or strong.

I love those conversations too..."But like, they wouldn't be higher level than us right?" ..."Why would.. oh say.. the Red Wizards be or send level 1(s) after you?"... "Well I wouldn't be a huge threat", "What did I just tell you about dragon parts?"... "They're rare... and expensive... I see your point"

In your game I would just say as part of the game/player invite. "Yo, don't be a dragon, or a dragonkin or a dragony thingy, just make... not a dragon"
If your players trust you they may just say "okay" If they don't, or are just curious and ask why you can always go with "Because I'm the GM and I'm politely asking you not to." If that's not enough... they're frankly, a bad player.

Edit:

I would ask them what they think of large-scale spoilers in general.

More like Large-Scaled spoilers amirite? amirite?

[goto124]

Why tell them OOCly that dragons don't exist?

You could have lots of NPCs and pretty much every book say they don't exist. But the DM saying that is a totally different story. Does the DM even have to say whether or not they exist?

[Sliver]

I wouldn't find it frustrating. I don't expect to know everything about the campaign world from the start. Though if the DM simply says "Dragons don't exist" or "aren't around" I would immediately expect it to be some sort of plot point. I find it very rare that a DM would disallow certain character options without it being relevant to the plot. It's easy for someone living in the setting to take the non-existence of whatever for granted, but for a player? If a DM calls out a specific element to be banned for players, it's either Plot or Balance at play. Anything Dragon? Plot.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Frustrated? No. But I'd be disappointed that you were so quick to double back on the presumed premise of your campaign.

If the point of the campaign is that dragons are returning to the world, it shouldn't be something you do in the first or second session. Think of how Game of Thrones has been slowly building up almost the exact same plot point. Discovering that dragons are returning should be a payoff.

So you need to open with the dragonless world. But maybe there's a dragon cult that claims they're worshipping the dragons. But they're very obviously fake. But there should be bits and pieces here and there that won't go away. The dragons won't disappear, so to speak. Don't make it too frequent, but the ventures of the characters should keep going, with dragon stuff showing up despite the fact that the dragons are gone forever and then WHAM there's a dragon.

From that point, you can dip into the mystery of why there's a dragon. And dig into the emergence of dragons. But don't spill it in the second session. Depending on how long your campaigns tend to run, maybe it's the fifth session or sixth session. Just...give them time to inhabit the dragonless world.

[LucianoAr]

our dm did exactly this, but dragons didnt enter the game till like the 8th session, so it took a while and momentum was built.

personally i loved it, but our sorcerer got stuck with wild magic and he wanted dragon bloodline, and that made him a bit pissed, so maybe you can either tell him he gets the same feats but he has a .... whatever else... bloodline.

as for dragonborn, thats a bit tougher.

[Hyena]

As others have already said, first/second session is simply to early for such a reveal. You need to wait before doing it.

[YossarianLives]

I will take to heart the suggestions of waiting a bit longer for the big reveal. Thanks everyone.

[Thrudd]

I don't think it's a big deal. I might have found out what types of characters they wanted to play before bringing it up, and only mentioned the "no dragons" if I absolutely had to (like someone wanted to be a half-dragon or something else ridiculous). Keep as much of the plot relevant information in-game as possible.

[Honest Tiefling]

Honestly, I'd only be frustrated if there was a super duper dragon lover who really wanted to be part dragon by being a sorcerer or some such. Because it would be the perfect time for that to matter, and to play up to it. If this occurs to you...If the other player is mature and considerate go ahead to let them know.

Otherwise, I'd probably trust you if I'm your friend and would understand why you would do this.

[kyoryu]

Frustrated? No. But I'd be disappointed that you were so quick to double back on the presumed premise of your campaign.

If the point of the campaign is that dragons are returning to the world, it shouldn't be something you do in the first or second session. Think of how Game of Thrones has been slowly building up almost the exact same plot point. Discovering that dragons are returning should be a payoff.

I'm totally with him on this.

But, if you really don't want to take the time to set this kind of baseline, the other option is, I think, to tell them up-front "Okay, this game is going to be about dragons returning to the world."

Either way would work, I think, better than "dragons don't exist" and then they show up in the first/second session.

[BWR]

It depends on how the game is done.
Personally, if the DM tells me "this game has these restrictions and certain things from the rulebooks don't exist" I'm perfectly fine with it. I had never come across the idea that some players are so self-entitled that they feel the DM should not put limits on their characters in any way until I started frequenting this place.
If the DM later introduces some of the elements he previously said were unavailable, I'd probably be ok with it, depending on how it's done. In this case, I'd have no trouble. The setting says there haven't been dragons around for ages. Suddenly, dragons are coming back! Consternation, uproar! Honestly, if someone gets his knickers in a twist because he wasn't allowed to play something dragon-related in a game like this, he needs a metaphorical whack on the back of the head.

It can be done poorly but that would lead to disappointment more than anything else. If the DM had forbidden one player from doing something then allowed another or an NPC wtihout very good in game reasons, then I would think it's unfair.

[LooseCannoneer]

I lie to my players all the time. The only time one ever got angry was when I lied to them about the focus of my campaign. The previous DM got in touch with me and told me that if that player ever plays a Ranger with an accurate favored enemy, he would make the game unfun for the others.

Amount of times I've outright lied to my players: Over 15.
Players got mad: 1.

Besides, if a player gets mad at you for not spoiling the campaign, they're the one with a problem.

[Flickerdart]

it's an easy answer - before you said "dragons don't exist" did one of your players want to play a dragon-themed character? Is there a Ranger in your party who looked at Favored Enemy and thought 'well I won't take Dragon cause they don't exist"? If there are, that would be a problem.

I must agree with the above posters though - if all that the players know about dragons is that they don't exist, and there are suddenly dragons...well whoop tee freakin' doo.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'm totally with him on this.

But, if you really don't want to take the time to set this kind of baseline, the other option is, I think, to tell them up-front "Okay, this game is going to be about dragons returning to the world."

Either way would work, I think, better than "dragons don't exist" and then they show up in the first/second session.

Agreed. One way or the other, not something in-between.

[Jay R]

If you run the game well and they enjoy each incident, it will succeed. The surprise can't hurt it.

If the game is not fun at every step, the lack of surprise can't help it.

[goto124]

I lie to my players all the time. The only time one ever got angry was when I lied to them about the focus of my campaign. The previous DM got in touch with me and told me that if that player ever plays a Ranger with an accurate favored enemy, he would make the game unfun for the others.

Amount of times I've outright lied to my players: Over 15.
Players got mad: 1.

Besides, if a player gets mad at you for not spoiling the campaign, they're the one with a problem.

May I know what exactly the lies were, please?

[VincentTakeda]

I remember reading an article somewhere where the basic point was that people as a whole both enjoyed more and spent more by a full order of magnitude the movies where the entire plot was spoiled by the trailer.

Moral of the story... People hate surprises.

It would not surprise me in the least if the players would find that element of the game more enjoyable knowing about it in advance... The chink in the armor is that you're hiding it from them to experience the personal glee of the reveal. My personal experience with the largess of players matches the research about movies... They enjoy it more and are more invested in it knowing about it in advance. I'm not particularly happy about this truth, but the older and more experienced my players are, the less they seem to like surprises. ymmv of course.

[Solaris]

I have avoided having dragon players in my games using a simple method.

I explain that

1) Dragon parts are used in magic
2) Dragon parts are very expensive
3) The people who want dragon parts are higher level or strong.

I love those conversations too..."But like, they wouldn't be higher level than us right?" ..."Why would.. oh say.. the Red Wizards be or send level 1(s) after you?"... "Well I wouldn't be a huge threat", "What did I just tell you about dragon parts?"... "They're rare... and expensive... I see your point"

To what point and purpose do you go through the exercise of "I'm the GM, I can wheel out bigger and badder things than you" when a character makes the mistake of wanting to play something other than yet another generic fantasy humanoid?
Furthermore, how are these dragon-hunters not extinct from drawing the ire of great wyrms who aren't exactly keen on their genus being eradicated for their body parts?

If your players trust you they may just say "okay" If they don't, or are just curious and ask why you can always go with "Because I'm the GM and I'm politely asking you not to." If that's not enough... they're frankly, a bad player.

"Because I'm the GM" and variations thereof are a major warning sign for me. It tells me the person I'm playing with is one of those who confuses the GM for being the players' superior, and that character creation is a game of Mother-May-I that may or may not have any sort of connected reasoning behind it beyond the GM wanting to exercise power.
You really ought to come up with at least some explanation beyond "Because I said". In this case, it would be "Because there are no such things as dragons in this setting." The difference may seem subtle, but it's all the world between someone who simply exercises fiat to suit his whims and someone who's building a coherent world to play in.

I... I really don't see how being curious about the setting and trying to figure out a reason for a character design being shot down makes someone a bad player. You're passing up an opportunity to enlighten in favor of an opportunity to throw around social clout with all the finesse of an ogre by following this advice.

[Jay R]

I never lie to my players. What would be the point, since they don't listen carefully, and usually confuse themselves anyway.

The cleric in the party right now believes that Detect Evil doesn't work on people, because I told her that she'd never seen it pick up a person's alignment, when she grew up in a small village of decent people. As soon as she casts in when a person is present, she will learn otherwise.

Will she remember that I said that she'd never seen it, instead of that it doesn't happen? Who knows?

[Mystral]

My players. Please stay out!

Spoiler

Show

Basically the whole plot of my campaign revolves around dragons (who haven't been seen for over 10000 years) returning to the world. But I can't tell my players that they do exist or it will ruin the plot and surprise. So I've told them that dragons don't exist in my setting and they can't play any dragon related stuff. However it will be revealed that dragons do exist in the first or second session. So I'm worried that they will be angry about me lying.

As a player would you be frustrated about this?

I simply wouldn't care. It seems a bit superfluous to tell them specifically that dragons don't exist, than do the "reveal" after 10 minutes. Maybe give it a bit of time, make an adventure without dragons, then one with some hints to dragons, than reveal one.

[draken50]

To what point and purpose do you go through the exercise of "I'm the GM, I can wheel out bigger and badder things than you" when a character makes the mistake of wanting to play something other than yet another generic fantasy humanoid?
Furthermore, how are these dragon-hunters not extinct from drawing the ire of great wyrms who aren't exactly keen on their genus being eradicated for their body parts?

A couple things.
1) Innately magical creatures being hunted for their pieces and parts or for study or ect. Tends to be one of the primary focuses of evil arcane organizations in my games. I like the feel of ritual magic and It has worked well plot wise for creating powerful magic spells that the PC's would not want to replicate on their own, as I run non-evil games. So quests and the like can additionally center on protecting or helping said inately magical beings who are often more likely to live concealed or hermit-ed lives. Lives that additionally don't match in the slightest the sorts of adventures and tales that my pcs get up to.

Also said hunters/organizations tend to be smart enough to avoid fighting great dragons ect. by trying to find weaker and less capable sources. As such a half dragon adventurer just starting to make a name for himself and his group is easier pickings and unlikely to draw as much ire as adventures disappear on adventures.. well.. all the time.

2) I want my players to know the game I run. Have you ever had a player play a drow and then get really mad that people thought they were a baby-stealing person enslaving murder from the depths of the earth? I have, cause guess what man, you are a drow! You are of a race with a not undeserved reputation for evil!
But hey, maybe I should change the whole setting because you want to play an elf that happens to be black with silver hair and has all the magical abilities of a drow but you don't want the pesky persecution that comes with it. And No, I'm not throwing magic items at you or changing the setting because you like the numbers that come with an alternate color palette.

"Because I'm the GM" and variations thereof are a major warning sign for me. It tells me the person I'm playing with is one of those who confuses the GM for being the players' superior, and that character creation is a game of Mother-May-I that may or may not have any sort of connected reasoning behind it beyond the GM wanting to exercise power.

I understand that completely, and I know that my preferred style of GMing may not be compatible with some players. I don't consider them bad players, or anything to that regard, just incompatible with my play-style. Very similarly, as a player I don't enjoy games with secret secret note passing between other PCs and leaving other players intentionally in the dark about major plot points ect. I wouldn't say people who do that are bad players, they just aren't compatible with my preferred play-style.

I... I really don't see how being curious about the setting and trying to figure out a reason for a character design being shot down makes someone a bad player. You're passing up an opportunity to enlighten in favor of an opportunity to throw around social clout with all the finesse of an ogre by following this advice.

I never said it does. However you can decide that you trust the GM and he isn't a jerk, or you can decide that he may be a jerk, or a secret jerk or secretly getting off on his power. As a player, if I think it's any but the first. I don't play in that game. Very simple. If your character design ruins a major revelation plot point, and me explaining that to you eliminates a major revelation plot point, I'm not going to tell you. Additionally, as it has happened once in one of my games, the player enjoyed the revelation more as they were going "No wonder you asked me not to make a [member of an organization]!" As well as the later conversation that the game could have been neat had they been, but that I didn't trust my skills to handle that game well, or fairly.

I don't care about good/bad players, I have no right to claim that one style or another is better or whatnot. All I care about are MY players, and my players need to have trust in me. If they don't, there are other games. I tell my players how to play, I say no-evil characters, if this your first game, no casters, you will get along, you will be a team.

My players have to trust that I say no-evil characters, because that's a game that I could not run well.
I say no casters for new players because it's another pile of rules to deal with and hasn't gone well in the past.
I say you will get along because I don't like pvp or bs like paladins saying the rogue can't lie or steal.
You will be a team, because your enemies will be too, and they aren't dumb... except for the dumb ones... they're pretty dumb.

I explain all of that to any new player in my game, because I want to build trust, yes I limit creativity, yes its different then your other games, but no, I am not doing it because I just like to do it, and no I will not be offended or think you're a bad player if you don't want to be in my game.

Honestly, I understand the OP's quandary. You don't want to lie to the players and possibly damage the trust between the GM and the players, but you also don't want what is obviously the large overarching plot apparent from character creation. My players really enjoy crafting theories about events and trying to figure out whats going on. Often, the actual plot is figured out beforehand but only as one of many possibilities. I've also been able to use connections that they have found, that I didn't even think of, to further strengthen not only the plot, but the satisfaction of those revealing moments. "I knew it!" type things that seem to give more satisfaction o my players than just "What a twist!" kind of stuff.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I remember reading an article somewhere where the basic point was that people as a whole both enjoyed more and spent more by a full order of magnitude the movies where the entire plot was spoiled by the trailer.

Moral of the story... People hate surprises.

The only thing I've heard like that was a psychology study with really dubious methodology and small sample size. I would not take it as anything substantially true, nor would I generalize that people hate surprises, which is not a conclusion you can extrapolate from "people enjoyed the movie more when it was spoiled for them". (Liking something less is not the same as hating it.)

[BRC]

I suppose it depends.

Open with "Yeah, in this setting, Dragons have not been seen for 10000 Years, they basically don't exist except in legend".

Depending on how you define "Dragon Related Stuff", it may or may not be a problem, unless one of the players REALLY REALLY wanted to play a Half-Dragon or a Dragonborn or something, I don't see it being an issue.

[Jay R]

You need to present it in the right light, when it comes out.

Nobody gets upset if the DM says, "It's daytime now," and then three episodes later they are attacked in the dark. Everybody knows that that will change.

When you present dragons appearing, you need to make clear, perhaps with some NPC comments, that they are now coming into existence, and that they didn't exist before.

[goto124]

Still not necessary to outright lie. If a player asks 'why can't I make a dragon', you could say 'plot point, it will not turn out well'. But not 'dragons don't exist'.