The Migration of Information Across the Screen

[ExploderWizard]

Information divide wasn't a part of all old school gaming. The Moldvay/Cook/Marsh era character sheets featured a hit matrix on the bottom of the front page. The cleric turning table was displayed right next to the other level advancement info for clerics. All of the combat info, monster stats , and even the magic items were bound into one little 64 page book. It wasn't until the Mentzer edition came out that the player and DM info became separated.

I still like the idea of "secret" information. The special notes in the 1E DMG about spells was great stuff. I generally agree with Jack 7. Any real mystery in the campaign needs to be created by the DM.

 

[Branduil]

I don't really see the point of hiding information from the players. If you're the kind of DM that fudges things, you should let your players know that. It seems like most of the issues presented are issues of trust between the DM and the players, and if those are there hiding information isn't going to solve the trust issues.

 

[Reynard]

I don't really see the point of hiding information from the players. If you're the kind of DM that fudges things, you should let your players know that. It seems like most of the issues presented are issues of trust between the DM and the players, and if those are there hiding information isn't going to solve the trust issues.

I guess that depends on what you consider "hiding" information. Do you have to tell the player what the DC for a check is? Do you have to tell him what the AC or HD/hp of the enemy is? Do you have to tell them they failed a Spot or Listen check against the invisible stalker? Do you have to tell them there's a secret door in the room or that there's a trap on the chest?

 

[Storminator]

I guess that depends on what you consider "hiding" information. Do you have to tell the player what the DC for a check is? Do you have to tell him what the AC or HD/hp of the enemy is? Do you have to tell them they failed a Spot or Listen check against the invisible stalker? Do you have to tell them there's a secret door in the room or that there's a trap on the chest?

What about how to make attacks? Or how to make saving throws? Or how your infravision works?

Everything on your list is an adventure detail that rightly belongs in the province of DM info to disseminate as he chooses. A lot of the info "hidden" in the DMG in older additions is not.

*shrug* It was a different time.

PS

 

[Night]

Besides all which, the drawback for me of obfuscated rules hiding in multiple books was, well, pretty straightforward -- I couldn't remember all of them, so I wouldn't usually be trying to "pull one over" on players messing up, I'd just screw up from time to time.

And that could lead to arguments, because though it sounds like some of you guys had pretty clean and simple gaming groups where the players read nothing but the PHB and never passed pages that said things like "DO NOT READ THIS UNLESS YOU ARE THE DUNGEONMASTER," but... yeah, I didn't have any players like that at all.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What about how to make attacks? Or how to make saving throws? Or how your infravision works?

Everything on your list is an adventure detail that rightly belongs in the province of DM info to disseminate as he chooses. A lot of the info "hidden" in the DMG in older additions is not.

*shrug* It was a different time.

PS

Huh? Lets not confuse "how" with "what exactly do I need to roll in this particular situation".

I doubt that a player will need to ask how to attack or roll a save beyond the first session.

 

[Janx]

As a GM, I generally hide instance data that the PC wouldn't know. Instance data is the data pertaining to a specific instance/situation. The # of HP remaining on the 1st orc, for example. The DC of the lock on the jail cell the party is stuck in. As opposed to meta-data, data that is static and defines the game. The MM stats on orcs, and DMG description of Holy Avenger swords would be examples of Meta-Data.

Instance Data Examples:
monster AC, unless they've been fighting the same thing long enough, where it saves time if the know
DC for most things, unless the PC would know how hard it is to attempt
roll results where PC wouldn't know of failure (stealth, diplomacy, etc)
attributes of gear on NPCs/monsters
monster stats and abilities (aside from AC, for combat speed reasons)

I don't think instance data is what this discussion is about. Instance data is what's on the DM's notes, and adventure documents. Meta-data is what's in the DMG and MM.

The observation is that 1E hid a lot more meta-data and rules from the players than later editions. It seems pretty obvious this is true. However, as players play the game, they figure out all of that meta-data. So after a time, these secrets are meaningless.

To that end, what's the real point of having the secret meta-data? I suspect there's a middle ground. I'd like it if players didn't have all the MM memorized. And if the items in the DMG were surprises when they found them. Beyond that, not much else is sacred in those books.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

I both play and DM. I know all the meta-data. Asking me not to is counterproductive to my other games. The easy counter if you want mystery is to make up new meta-data that is specific to your campaign. 4e facilitates this briliently with both their distiction between crunch and fluff and their advice on making cusom monsters. It is easy and creates better games. Giving the players the data for running their characters up front facilitates play. If you want mystery, add it with campaign elements, not game elements.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I've always played with players who knew the game mechanics/meta-data. Most of us would take turns at GMing so we'd need to. Not to mention we would just read the books for fun. All of us had the MM memorised. And I'm sure that's the same with most groups. It only occasionally detracted from game play. And what can you do? Ask people to forget stuff? (Actually we do, we all try to play with player knowledge separate from character knowledge.) It all muddles through well enough in the end.

 

[Lanefan]

Only if 1) the campaign's mysteries all stem from the rules and 2) the DM doesn't add anything new.

Besides, a loss of mystery can be a desired outcome. Consider a rule-opaque game where the PC's learn about the setting and its dangers solely through play. As the encounter/overcome/lose to more and more challenges, they'll know more, opponents will perforce be less mysterious, they might even develop standard operating procedures for dealing with them.

This is a good thing. It's learning the campaign. But, in a way, it's also the means the loss of mystery. Sometimes the 'fantasy' and 'game' parts of D&D are at odds...

Mystery is lost as the mysteries are solved, obviously. But I'd rather go through the learning curve myself during the campaign than have the information all dumped in my lap at the start; and from my own experience most players would too.

Example: a while back I ran a one-off adventure with a couple of players who, so they said, had done a fair bit of 1e-type gaming. They met a Green Slime. Neither player had ever heard of such a thing; and the looks on their faces when one of the PCs got slimed were priceless! (and their most frequent comment since about that event has been "Awesome!")

And though a moment like that can only happen once per each new element, it can't happen at all if they've read the MM.

Lanefan