D&D 5E Is This Odd?

iserith · Jul 19, 2019

Blue said:
If you were running a published adventure, would you be fine with players reading that adventure and learning plot twists, NPC motivations, and the like?

Yes. Players frequently replay my one-shots with full knowledge of what to expect, sometimes many times over. This just isn't a problem in my experience.

That said, there is no module I have ever run as-is because they are in my opinion frequently terrible. Especially the plot-based ones.

Blue said:
I personally would not, and have had this come up before when I was a player years ago (AD&D 2nd era). I was very angry at another player who read the module and his character knew where all the loot was hidden and what was cursed, the vulnerabilities of all the monsters, how to disarm every trap and solve every puzzle. Called him a cheater to be exact.

This is more extreme then reading the MM, but not an absurb reduction - it's players with knowledge and using it. The DM could change thing around (and did after the end of that all-day session), but only after it became obvious what was happening - i.e. "the damage was done".

My question is less about what people's particular opinions are on this (which are varied and inconsistent in my view) but where the opinion originated, as it pertains to separation of player and character knowledge. Was it organic or did it arise from some rules years ago?

Swarmkeeper · Jul 19, 2019

Blue said:
If you were running a published adventure, would you be fine with players reading that adventure and learning plot twists, NPC motivations, and the like? Without changing it - the question here is about player knowledge.

I personally would not, and have had this come up before when I was a player years ago (AD&D 2nd era). I was very angry at another player who read the module and his character knew where all the loot was hidden and what was cursed, the vulnerabilities of all the monsters, how to disarm every trap and solve every puzzle. Called him a cheater to be exact.

This is more extreme then reading the MM, but not an absurb reduction - it's players with knowledge and using it. The DM could change thing around (and did after the end of that all-day session), but only after it became obvious what was happening - i.e. "the damage was done".

The context of the discussion, in my mind, assumes that players are at our table to have fun and not infringe on anyone else's fun. So, yeah, that type of player you decribe would not be at our table very long. Knowing about monsters is fine. Reading a published adventure to gain an upper hand and spoil it for others is decidedly in the un-fun camp. They are abusing knowledge, not just using it. Buh-bye.

Now, if a well-intentioned player had read or played or DMed an adventure before, and really wanted to play it (again), and let me as DM know this before we started the campaign, we could come to an agreement. They would agree to not spoil any surprises for other players and I would mix things up to make sure they were challenged appropriately.

iserith · Jul 19, 2019

DM Dave1 said:
The context of the discussion, in my mind, assumes that players are at our table to have fun and not infringe on anyone else's fun. So, yeah, that type of player you decribe would not be at our table very long. Knowing about monsters is fine. Reading a published adventure to gain an upper hand and spoil it for others is decidedly in the un-fun camp. They are abusing knowledge, not just using it. Buh-bye.

Now, if a well-intentioned player had read or played or DMed an adventure before, and really wanted to play it (again), and let me as DM know this before we started the campaign, we could come to an agreement. They would agree to not spoil any surprises for other players and I would mix things up to make sure they were challenged appropriately.

Yes, I think what is frequently forgotten in these discussions is that the players, regardless of the situation, are obligated to pursue the goals of play, that is, everyone having fun and contributing to the creation of an exciting memorable tale. It's spelled out right in the rules.

Whether you know the module backwards and forwards or not, your decisions as a player still have to achieve those goals. Players with exact knowledge of the module can, knowing they have this responsibility, make great decisions that support the goals of play. It's the players that don't know they have this responsibility that are the issue, but that is a separate matter from simply having knowledge about elements of the module.

practicalm · Jul 19, 2019

I prefer that players do not access monster stats of the creatures they are fighting.
1. It just breaks the tension of what the enemy they are facing is capable of unless they've fought one before.
2. I probably gave the enemy some extra powers or something and I'm not interesting in players arguing about how that's not what the book says (rare at my tables)
3. It distracts from the game itself that the player is doing something else instead of paying attention to the game (Problem with cell phones as well)

There are cases where a player is prepping for their action (polymorph or wild shape) which then only the last issue applies but getting their turn ready to go it a case where that supersedes my concerns.

MarkB · Jul 19, 2019

iserith said:
Yes, I think what is frequently forgotten in these discussions is that the players, regardless of the situation, are obligated to pursue the goals of play, that is, everyone having fun and contributing to the creation of an exciting memorable tale. It's spelled out right in the rules.

Whether you know the module backwards and forwards or not, your decisions as a player still have to achieve those goals. Players with exact knowledge of the module can, knowing they have this responsibility, make great decisions that support the goals of play. It's the players that don't know they have this responsibility that are the issue, but that is a separate matter from simply having knowledge about elements of the module.

This is probably one reason why something like this is more likely to crop up in the situation described in the OP - a person running games in a public setting like a game store, rather than at home with friends. You're more likely to encounter people who aren't so familiar with the game, and have no idea of what is and isn't appropriate in play. It's easy to imagine someone who runs games in that situation having some bad experiences in that regard, and becoming particularly wary of it happening again, leading to stricter table rules than we might expect to see at other tables.

iserith · Jul 19, 2019

MarkB said:
This is probably one reason why something like this is more likely to crop up in the situation described in the OP - a person running games in a public setting like a game store, rather than at home with friends. You're more likely to encounter people who aren't so familiar with the game, and have no idea of what is and isn't appropriate in play. It's easy to imagine someone who runs games in that situation having some bad experiences in that regard, and becoming particularly wary of it happening again, leading to stricter table rules than we might expect to see at other tables.

Sure, and that argues for page-setting when playing with new players, just as would be the case in my view for playing any game with new players.

I run a fair amount of pickup games (not as much as I used to) and the first thing on my table rules is: "Before doing or saying anything, remember to consider the goals of play by asking yourself, 'Is what I'm about to do or say going to be fun for everyone at the table? Is what I'm about to do or say going to help create an exciting, memorable story?' If the answer to either of those questions is 'No' or 'I'm not sure,' then choose to do or say something else."

And while I call that a "table rule," it's actually lifted out of the rules themselves, right in the introduction. Literally Page 1 stuff (though technically Page 5).

aco175 · Jul 19, 2019

I do not usually have this problem. Mostly since we have been playing together for a long time, but I can see where it would happen. I tend to give out some monster knowledge at the start of battle based on what the PCs should know if they grew up in a world where these monsters are from. I tell the players that they know skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning. It is something they should know, like that a medusa will turn you to stone. Being un-stoned is not common knowledge and I may allow a check to be able to look at the book for hints. This is also not to say the book is right in my game.

Not sure if I would change the way to turn a petrified PC back if the players just started looking at the book once his PC was out of the fight. Might depend on how long the player has been playing. Kind of goes along with players talking to other players when their PC is not in the room or when one PC makes a Perception check and the other player acts on it before being told.

jasper · Jul 19, 2019

I have to laugh at MarkB’s comment. I had more bad players crack a MM open at home than those who opened a MM in Public. Of course some of bad players were only in the house because they were snuggle partners with my regular good players.
In the past I placed Monster Manuals in the game. Find the right monster tome and you could crack open the MM during combat. Now days after learning to just accept bad behavior I just call for a skill check.

WaterRabbit · Jul 19, 2019

A player reading the MM would be considered bad form if they did it at the table in every group I have played with. And not because of meta-knowledge. I have played with people that literally had every monster in the manual memorized.

We also considered it bad form to open the PHB during combat as well. Your character sheet was suppose to contain all of the info the player needed.

The reason they were considered bad form is the player isn't paying attention to the combat and it slows combat to a crawl if they haven't been paying attention. When it is their turn they were expected to go and have figured during other player's turns what they were going to do.

Now outside of combat, it depends on how distracted the player is as to if looking at a book at the table would be an issue.

Bitbrain · Jul 19, 2019

Reply to OP.

I see absolutely no problem whatsoever with the players looking through the monster manual during play.

because I use homebrew monsters exclusively.

You can look through the book all you want . . . You ain’t gonna find my versions of the monsters in there.