• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

DMG & MM: Players Stay Out?

mhacdebhandia

Explorer
S'mon said:
2. Re item crafting, the default 3e approach requires players with Craft Wondrous be able to look up all the Wondrous items to see what they can make. But I think this is bad design. I'd prefer a system where the PC decided very generally what they wanted - "a flaming sword" - and then had to research it in-game, with the GM telling them what they thought they could make and what the requirements were.
I think that's pretty silly. Why should the player have to jump through hoops? Why should the player have to pretend to ignorance of the wider scope? The player isn't the character, and playing the game as if you only know whatever your character explicitly knows (read: whatever the DM explicitly tells you your character knows) strikes me as a needlessly limited playstyle.

Not something I want to see enshrined as the default in any future edition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
mhacdebhandia said:
I think that's pretty silly. Why should the player have to jump through hoops? Why should the player have to pretend to ignorance of the wider scope?

They should be playing their PC in-character. Making any but the most minor magic items should be a fairly major project, in the default rules. A variant setting where magic item production is industrialised could have different rules - ie 3e rules work fine for Eberron, but not for Greyhawk.
 

Geron Raveneye

Explorer
Hussar said:
Maybe it's because I started with Basic D&D. There was no separation of the rules between multiple books there. There was no assumption that you were verboten from seeing the DM's rules. You bought to box set and you read it. Then you gave it to your friends to read, because they wanted a shot too.


Uhm, not saying you're wrong on all accounts here, just wondering what Basic D&D you started with. Mine was the Mentzer version, and if you read the Preface in the Dungeon Master's Rulebook, you can read Mentzer telling you:

"You must know how to be a player before learning how to be a Dungeon Master. For now, if you only wish to play and not run games, then

DO NOT READ THIS BOOKLET.

This booklet contains information for the Dungeon Master. You will have less fun playing if you learn the information ahead of time! A big part of the game is the mystery and excitement that comes from not knowing all the answers."

Apparently, the early creators of the first D&D versions clearly thought that you wouldn't need to know "everything" in the game to just play it. On the other hand, the Player's Rulebook DID have all the rules necessary for the player...everything else was for the DM to dispense when it became necessary.

So which one did you start with? I'd guess Holmes or Moldvay...haven't seen either of those, since they never made a german translation of those, and I couldn't get my interest up enough to purchase them now that my English is better...one Basic D&D always was enough for me. :lol:
 

S'mon

Legend
Geron Raveneye said:
Uhm, not saying you're wrong on all accounts here, just wondering what Basic D&D you started with. Mine was the Mentzer version...

I checked my copy of Moldvay Basic this morning, and he does say (paraphrasing) "Read this whole book, except for the sample dungeon" - including monsters, treasures etc.
 

Defender_X

Explorer
My group, when we were playing would crack into the DMG to help clear up a rule or situation. We didn't get into the MM since that was unfair to the DM. I did have a DM get upset at me for looking at equipment prices in the PHB(2E) when I wanted to look up the base price 'cause I felt his NPC's markup was extreme and I wasn't going to make a fuss anyway.
 

Steely Dan

Banned
Banned
vagabundo said:
Well meet me! I never get to play. evar!!! :(

I have been DMin constantly for 10yrs +. None of my players have the inclination.

Yep, me too, for about 20 years – always the bridesmaid (the DM), never the bride (a player).
 

vagabundo

Adventurer
Steely Dan said:
Yep, me too, for about 20 years – always the bridesmaid (the DM), never the bride (a player).

Well I did get to play (kinda) twice and nearly another time:

- Both my brothers created a pretty rules free game of DND, they didnt know much about the rules, they had no story, just a bizzare setting and really werid random encounters. My very cool dwarf character found a Gold Nugget the size of a small house in a cave. Anyway it ended after one session.

- I played one game at a convention one time.

- Two years ago one of my players offered to DM. WOW, I said. Go for it. One cancelleation, another no show and he confided in me that it was too much pressure, so I had to adlib a game.

I've resigned myself to never playing, so I've played through DND CRPGs :( ...
 

ghearus

Explorer
This whole discussion gets to the core of role-playing. The books present a set of rules that are used to outline the mechanics of the game. Although I have only been playing 3.5 for a little while, when I started, I read each of the Core Books (MM included). The reason is pretty simple; as a player I want to know what the rules for my character are, and if I chose to DM, I wanted to be sure that I was familiar with the critters available to throw at my players.

What this translates into at the game table is that I have a fairly solid understanding of the rules that govern a myriad of unusual situations, that my character should not have. It is up to me as a player to choose if I want to use it for metagaming or to roleplay. I have a tumble score of 16, so it means I am pretty darn good at it. Being fairly well trained in that skill it is reasonable that my character would know that trying to tumble through an enemies square is really quite hard (DC 25). Knowing that if I try to tumble past that critter will generate extra attacks of opportunity because it has a special quality I read about in the MM is pretty bogus.

The onus is on the DM to create a sense of mystery by saying things like "you see a ugly green humanoid that has a sickly pallor, as it shuffles closer, you can smell rotting flesh, and and it is missing small patches of skin" to it instead of saying "you see a Zombie Goblin". Of course, this can be set aside to a certain degree if you are on your tenth zombie goblin encounter in the Temple of Zombie Goblins. Should we get to the basement of the Temple and encounter a well rotted zombie with worms crawling on it, if I shout out "Oh no! A spawn of Kyuss!" I have taken a wild step over the line of meta-gaming.

When I want my character to have knowledge that I as a player have, it is my responsibility to work with the DM to create a reasonable scenario where I can have that knowledge and act on it when playing my character. After the above encounter with said spawn where MeatShield the Barbarian was infected by a spawn worm causing us to retreat, we visit the local clergy. While he heals up MeatShield, the priest explains that they have had many adventurers come by lately with similar problems and that there is a nasty zombie in the temple, and provides some insight about how to destroy it and defend ourselves while doing so.

Ultimately how the game is played is up to the players; you should be playing the game to have fun. If you, your players, or your DM are not having fun, that is an issue that needs to be fixed or your campaign is going to fall apart. I would suspect though, that if fun at the game table equates with removing access to the rules, or a portion of them, from players, then I think it is time to re-evaluate how the group or people in the group are playing the game.

I do agree that looking up monsters mid-combat is pretty lame, even if you are going to cast a summoning spell; if you are familiar enough with the spell and options, then it is reasonable, otherwise, you need to spend time between sessions familiarizing yourself with the options available to your character.
 

kennew142

First Post
S'mon said:
They should be playing their PC in-character. Making any but the most minor magic items should be a fairly major project, in the default rules. A variant setting where magic item production is industrialised could have different rules - ie 3e rules work fine for Eberron, but not for Greyhawk.

We can talk about should until we're blue in the face. I happy to agree with you on the concept of making magic items, but 3e introduced the concept of the magic mart as the default assumption of the game. I doubt 4e will really change direction on this issue.
 

Geron Raveneye

Explorer
ghearus said:
This whole discussion gets to the core of role-playing. The books present a set of rules that are used to outline the mechanics of the game. Although I have only been playing 3.5 for a little while, when I started, I read each of the Core Books (MM included). The reason is pretty simple; as a player I want to know what the rules for my character are, and if I chose to DM, I wanted to be sure that I was familiar with the critters available to throw at my players.

What this translates into at the game table is that I have a fairly solid understanding of the rules that govern a myriad of unusual situations, that my character should not have. It is up to me as a player to choose if I want to use it for metagaming or to roleplay. I have a tumble score of 16, so it means I am pretty darn good at it. Being fairly well trained in that skill it is reasonable that my character would know that trying to tumble through an enemies square is really quite hard (DC 25). Knowing that if I try to tumble past that critter will generate extra attacks of opportunity because it has a special quality I read about in the MM is pretty bogus.

The onus is on the DM to create a sense of mystery by saying things like "you see a ugly green humanoid that has a sickly pallor, as it shuffles closer, you can smell rotting flesh, and and it is missing small patches of skin" to it instead of saying "you see a Zombie Goblin". Of course, this can be set aside to a certain degree if you are on your tenth zombie goblin encounter in the Temple of Zombie Goblins. Should we get to the basement of the Temple and encounter a well rotted zombie with worms crawling on it, if I shout out "Oh no! A spawn of Kyuss!" I have taken a wild step over the line of meta-gaming.

When I want my character to have knowledge that I as a player have, it is my responsibility to work with the DM to create a reasonable scenario where I can have that knowledge and act on it when playing my character. After the above encounter with said spawn where MeatShield the Barbarian was infected by a spawn worm causing us to retreat, we visit the local clergy. While he heals up MeatShield, the priest explains that they have had many adventurers come by lately with similar problems and that there is a nasty zombie in the temple, and provides some insight about how to destroy it and defend ourselves while doing so.

Ultimately how the game is played is up to the players; you should be playing the game to have fun. If you, your players, or your DM are not having fun, that is an issue that needs to be fixed or your campaign is going to fall apart. I would suspect though, that if fun at the game table equates with removing access to the rules, or a portion of them, from players, then I think it is time to re-evaluate how the group or people in the group are playing the game.

I do agree that looking up monsters mid-combat is pretty lame, even if you are going to cast a summoning spell; if you are familiar enough with the spell and options, then it is reasonable, otherwise, you need to spend time between sessions familiarizing yourself with the options available to your character.


Welcome to ENWorld...and congrats on a pretty good post for your #1. :D
 

Remove ads

Top