The Migration of Information Across the Screen

[Reynard]

In reading through and examining the PHB and DMG of each edition, I notice that there is a consistent movement of information from the DM's side of the screen to the players' side and very little flow back to the DM.

Perhaps the most obvious example is hit probability. In 1E, the DMG contained the combat matrices. While the players were told the relative combat skills of the various classes, the actual numbers were the province of the DM -- and not just the basic probability, but many of the affecting modifiers as well. With 2E came THAC0, a recalculation of the basic hit matrices of 1E, which made them more transparent to the players, which was presented in the PHB. Many of the basic combat modifiers remained in the DMG, however. But in 3E "to hit" in an overall sense was handed to the players, as not only was the basic probability (BAB) presented in the PHB, but so were most of the applicable modifiers and general combat rules, as well as tools specifically designed for the players to adjust their basic hit probability. 4E retains this aspect of 3E while simplifying the calculation of hit probability. This combined with the "cleaner" math of 4E makes hit probability extremely transparent.

This is only one example, of course. Saving throws, cleric's turning undead and similar subsystems all migrate through the editions from the DM's purview to that of the players. Even spells, which even in 1E were largely in the hands of the PCs, were given special treatment in the DMG that, at least in theory, the players were to discover through use. The transition of magic items into the PHB of 4E "completes" the process in a way.

One question to ask is "why"? Another is, "is this a good thing"? What benefits are gained by moving this information into the hands of the players? Similarly, what is lost? How does it affect play? What other kinds of information can be given over to the PCs? Will a later 4E book give the players monster stats (say, "The Summoner's Guidebook" or some such thing)? Is there even a supposition currently that the DMG and the MM are off limits to players?

 

[S'mon]

3e was incoherent - the DMG and MM were supposedly GM resources, but the RAW often required player access to those materials, eg for item crafting and summoned or companion animals.

Incidentally I have never used a DM's screen and never will, I have no need for such a barrier. It would only get in the way.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I'd say one benfit of this is that the work load gets spread around more. Makes things faster.

When I run a game I'm more than happy for everyone to lend a hand where possible: looking up spells, obscure rules, etc. So having them do the work for anything that their character does is fine by me.

 

[Mallus]

I'd say one benfit of this is that the work load gets spread around more. Makes things faster.

Exactly. The players become DM co-processors (at least with regard to game mechanics). This is especially handy when running 3e at higher levels.

What's lost? Nothing. The DM is always free to introduce things outside the scope of the rules that's (still) a mystery to the players.

Wait, strike that... what's lost is the notion that part of the DM's power/authority comes from controlling the amount of information about the game's mechanics that the players are privy to. And that's a good thing.

A DM's power/authority comes from the player's consent. Not from keeping them in the dark about the rules.

 

[D'karr]

Perhaps the most obvious example is hit probability. In 1E, the DMG contained the combat matrices. While the players were told the relative combat skills of the various classes, the actual numbers were the province of the DM -- and not just the basic probability, but many of the affecting modifiers as well.

One of the most consistent things I saw in any 1e game was a list of hit probabilities written across the bottom of every character sheet. I remember running it only one time with the DM keeping track of every little detail. It was too time consuming, and served no real beneficial purpose. The same happened with saves.

Just because information is contained in a DM resource does not mean that crafty DMs will usually eliminate superfluous work from themselves and give it to the players. Specially if the work specifically relates to the player's character.

The DMG and MM are, in 4e, not solely a DM resource but the players really get no benefit from them. There is no player information on the DMG, unless the Disease Track can be considered such, and I don't think it fits that definition. The MM contains nothing the players need. Most summoning does not summon an MM creature in the conventional sense. Even mounts have been placed as equipment and are mostly defined in a player resource "Adventurer's Vault."

I think the move in this direction is simply a matter of convenience, and it makes great sense.

What do you lose? Nothing that can't be injected back in. If you want to make common magic items more "magical" the DM can easily add things to them that are more "whimsical." Or he can easily house rule that identifying a magic item requires a ritual.

There really was nothing "magical" about not knowing what capabilities a +1 sword or a broom of flying had. Eventually you were going to find out what these things did. So having that be a mystery should be campaign dependent. If the DM wants to make it more difficult to identify he easily can.

You will notice that Artifacts are still relegated to the DMG, because those are the items that really are under the purview of the DM. Everything else can be pretty much commonplace.

 

[wingsandsword]

The way I see it, the basic mechanics of the game should be known by all players.

Things like your chances of hitting your enemy, using key class abilities, or avoiding harm are pretty key mechanics for a game like D&D. The way I see it, you should in theory be able to run, albeit poorly, D&D with just the PHB (as in run a simple one-shot/pick-up game with low-level characters), and use the MM and DMG for full functionality though.

Also, as was said, this turns players into co-processors in the game. In a math-intensive game, making each player responsible for most of the calculations required for their character makes the game run smoother (and gives the player more of a sense of control over their character, even if it's an illusion as long as they are playing honestly).

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Exactly. The players become DM co-processors (at least with regard to game mechanics). This is especially handy when running 3e at higher levels.

What's lost? Nothing. The DM is always free to introduce things outside the scope of the rules that's (still) a mystery to the players.

Wait, strike that... what's lost is the notion that part of the DM's power/authority comes from controlling the amount of information about the game's mechanics that the players are privy to. And that's a good thing.

A DM's power/authority comes from the player's consent. Not from keeping them in the dark about the rules.

Bingo! GIve that man a beer!
anything that make smy DM load lighter, long as it doesn't interfere with my role, or ruin mystery/tension, is good

 

[Wik]

While I agree with the majority of the posters here about taking the load off some of the DM's shoulders, I do think it has a negative impact as well.

It's in the "feel" of the game - by posting more and more in the PHBs, you are taking away some of the power of the DM - or maybe the mystery of the game. I have found, since 3e, that it has been harder for me as DM to make ad hoc rulings without a player stepping in and saying "wait, don't I get X?".

Basically, one of the big problems I have with 3e (and, to a smaller extent, 4e) is that I've lost a bit of DM power. This is what always contributes to my burnouts and "D&D breaks" that seem to happen annually.

 

[Night]

Thing is, Wik, sometimes they do get X and we've just forgotten. I don't think that's a hindrance or costs me any power; on the contrary, it saves me from having quite such a burden of knowing every facet of the rules.

I play with a couple of guys who can get a bit into too much rules lawyering, and while it drove me up the wall in 3rd Ed and I can see what you're getting at, that was more motivated from a perspective of trying to talk me into something on their part.

In 4th, the rules are laid out in a pretty straightforward and, dare I say, simple fashion, so most of the time when those same guys clear their throats now? They're just clarifying. It's a hell of a difference.

 

[Wik]

Thing is, Wik, sometimes they do get X and we've just forgotten. I don't think that's a hindrance or costs me any power; on the contrary, it saves me from having quite such a burden of knowing every facet of the rules.

I play with a couple of guys who can get a bit into too much rules lawyering, and while it drove me up the wall in 3rd Ed and I can see what you're getting at, that was more motivated from a perspective of trying to talk me into something on their part.

In 4th, the rules are laid out in a pretty straightforward and, dare I say, simple fashion, so most of the time when those same guys clear their throats now? They're just clarifying. It's a hell of a difference.

Fair enough, and I do think the progression in the editions has been a good thing. But when the DM has access to a whole slew of rules that the players don't, he's not going to get corrected as often. I've just noticed a change in feel from 2e to 3e/4e, and I think the change in how the PHBs are presented is part of it.