I am ambivalent about it since even if they tried their damndest not to metagame it seems likely they would unintentionally. Or they might let slip a plot point the characters aren't supposed to know about yet.
I wouldn't have a hard rule, but would take into consideration a few factors:
1. Are there other modules we could play instead?
2. Is this person a good role-player?
3. Are they willing to play a character that takes a backseat in decision-making? (such as the barbarian brute rather than the bard face)?
4. Is this a module full of twists and surprises that would be ruined if a player knew in advance what would happen, or is it a more traditional dungeon crawl?
5. Am I willing to sneak in some changes just in case?
Etc.
Yes I would.
In my circles we all DM, buy RPG stuff, read forums, ec. So odds are at least 2 of us (besides whoevers the DM atm) have read any particular thing.
So nobodies being blocked from play due to having extra info. All that would do is deprive us of someone's company.
Nor do we choose adventures based on who has/hasn't read x. Just: "is this something the group would like?"
My response is fairly similar to Jhaeman's with the added point that it depends if I think the player would purposefully metagame and/or ruin surprises for other players (eg: "Oh!!! I remember what this random NPC that we just met did but I'll trust them anyways" or some such thing.) Even just a knowing laugh or squeal can ruin things for the other players so if the one that's read it doesn't have a good poker face I'd find something else to run unless it was a fairly standard dungeon crawl.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Usually, no. Under very special circumstances with a really excellent player/fellow GM, I would consider it.
In my limited experience, anyone who's considerate enough to point out their own conflicts of interest are considerate enough to recuse themselves from anything that could be spoiled.
As a matter of fact, my major concern would be that the burden of decision making is shifted entirely onto the other players. For example, one time there was a puzzle that was just up to two of us to solve, because three people had GMed the adventure before. Another time, two of us had to declare marching order and move everyones' pawns around because the other two knew where all the traps were.
|
Absolutely, yes. I've read every one, and I would hate to be banned out of playing any AP because of it. And fair play requires turnabout -- if I wouldn't want to be banned, I shouldn't ban others either.
Of course I would expect not to spoil any surprises for other players, and if that became an issue, I would deal with it like I would any other troublesome behavior.
