Despite the success of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) in recent years, prompt design for LMMs in Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remains poorly understood. We show that even minor variations in prompt phrasing and structure can lead to accuracy deviations of up to 15% for certain prompts and models. This variability poses a challenge for transparent and fair LMM evaluation, as models often report their best-case performance using carefully selected prompts. To address this, we introduce Promptception, a systematic framework for evaluating prompt sensitivity in LMMs. It consists of 61 prompt types, spanning 15 categories and 6 supercategories, each targeting specific aspects of prompt formulation, and is used to evaluate 10 LMMs ranging from lightweight open-source models to GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro, across 3 MCQA benchmarks: MMStar, MMMU-Pro, MVBench. Our findings reveal that proprietary models exhibit greater sensitivity to prompt phrasing, reflecting tighter alignment with instruction semantics, while open-source models are steadier but struggle with nuanced and complex phrasing. Based on this analysis, we propose Prompting Principles tailored to proprietary and open-source LMMs, enabling more robust and fair model evaluation.