DMG & MM: Players Stay Out?

[Reynard]

What is it about having players who are stumbling around in the dark, wasting table time because they don't have any grasp of mechanics, that makes for a better experience?

I can see how that'd be annoying, but luckily that's not what we are talking about. The point isn't stopping players from knowing how the game works but rather maintaining a degree of honest to goodness real surprise and wonder at the table as both the players and their characters encounter things for the first time. It isn't an opportunity that comes along often, especially if, as a group, only one or two games is played. I am just thinking that 4E would be a perfect opportunity to indulge in this sense of discovery.

Some people have suggested that the DM should/can just make new stuff up. This is absolutely true and a nice cure for players who are jaded by years or decades of playing the game. It is also a lot of work and requires the DM to increase his already heavy workload. nott hat it isn't worthwhile, but at this one singular moment in time, it isn't necessary. Besides, let's turn it around: would you let the players see your secret setting design documents so they could "effectively oplay their characters"?

I mean, if surprise and wonder have no value, WotC might as well start selling "strategy guides" for players alongside the modules for DMs.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I can see how that'd be annoying, but luckily that's not what we are talking about. The point isn't stopping players from knowing how the game works but rather maintaining a degree of honest to goodness real surprise and wonder at the table as both the players and their characters encounter things for the first time. It isn't an opportunity that comes along often, especially if, as a group, only one or two games is played. I am just thinking that 4E would be a perfect opportunity to indulge in this sense of discovery.

Some people have suggested that the DM should/can just make new stuff up. This is absolutely true and a nice cure for players who are jaded by years or decades of playing the game. It is also a lot of work and requires the DM to increase his already heavy workload. nott hat it isn't worthwhile, but at this one singular moment in time, it isn't necessary. Besides, let's turn it around: would you let the players see your secret setting design documents so they could "effectively oplay their characters"?

I mean, if surprise and wonder have no value, WotC might as well start selling "strategy guides" for players alongside the modules for DMs.

There is a huge difference between rulebooks like the DMG or MM and "setting design documents". The latter has the specific plot and events of the game laid out, while the former can't possibly have such things. Similarly, letting players read the DMG and MM is not at all comparable to selling strategy guides for modules. Modules have stories, but the D&D rules and supplements do not.

Surprise and wonder are fine, but they can only be achieved through at the level of an individual setting and campaign, as created by a good DM. It is impossible for a whole game system to evoke those feelings, and I don't think it should even be a game designer's goal.

Besides, even if you are playing with a group of people who know nothing about the contents of the DMG or MM, there is no guarantee that they are not going to have all kinds of metagame preconceptions about how things work. You are never going to have even a complete newbie D&D player be surprised that a dragon can fly, for example. In fact, a lot of D&Disms (like dragon breath weapons other than fire) are just going to be weird for such a player, and it might be jarring and unfun, rather than wondrous and exciting.

 

[Reynard]

Besides, even if you are playing with a group of people who know nothing about the contents of the DMG or MM, there is no guarantee that they are not going to have all kinds of metagame preconceptions about how things work. You are never going to have even a complete newbie D&D player be surprised that a dragon can fly, for example. In fact, a lot of D&Disms (like dragon breath weapons other than fire) are just going to be weird for such a player, and it might be jarring and unfun, rather than wondrous and exciting.

But for he jaded D&D player, when an old familiar "friend" does something totally unexpected, and cool, it is all the better. That's what I am talking about here: taking advantage of the reinvention of the venerable game for the purpose of enjoying for the first time all over again.

Obviously, though, I am in the minority. Most people would rather know exactly what a fire archons powers and abilities are before wading into battle with it, I guess.

 

[rkanodia]

But for he jaded D&D player, when an old familiar "friend" does something totally unexpected, and cool, it is all the better. That's what I am talking about here: taking advantage of the reinvention of the venerable game for the purpose of enjoying for the first time all over again.

Obviously, though, I am in the minority. Most people would rather know exactly what a fire archons powers and abilities are before wading into battle with it, I guess.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. Because everyone has read the MM (not that I blame them!), I almost always change up one or two special abilities, or swap some AC for Attack Bonus, or something. This is part of why I'm excited about the 4E monster design paradigm: it should make it really easy to slap some special abilities onto a generic monster template and surprise the PCs.

 

[TwinBahamut]

But for he jaded D&D player, when an old familiar "friend" does something totally unexpected, and cool, it is all the better. That's what I am talking about here: taking advantage of the reinvention of the venerable game for the purpose of enjoying for the first time all over again.

Obviously, though, I am in the minority. Most people would rather know exactly what a fire archons powers and abilities are before wading into battle with it, I guess.

You are mischaracterizing my stance, a bit (or was I being unclear?).

I am not saying that everyone should have this information, or that I want to have such information. I am just saying that having this information isn't harmful. Also, I am not advocating having the Monster Manual open at the table so that the players know all the stats of their foes at all times. I am saying that a player reading the Monster Manual at some time away from the game has a huge benefit for his understanding of the D&D assumed gameworld, and probably helps his imagination and enjoyment of the game more than it hurts anything. After all, this is a thread about closing the books to players in an absolute sense, not restraining their use at the table.

Anyways, to put this all in perspective... I hate spoilers. I never go out of my way to get information about the plot of a TV series, book, or videogame. When I play videogames, I never buy strategy guides, and I check GameFAQs.com only to learn about mechanical details that I can't figure out easily on my own (and avoid plot spoilers like the plague while doing so). I have been known to (half-heartedly) threaten fellow D&D players with physical harm when they insist on talking about an anime series that I haven't seen in its entirety yet (and I always leave the room if they persist, to avoid the spoilers). As a D&D player, I would never try to sneak a look at the DM's notes to get a guess at what comes next in the plot, and as a DM I would probably ban a player who did such a thing from the game.

But rulebooks and mechanics? Those are open game for everyone, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Reynard]

But rulebooks and mechanics? Those are open game for everyone, as far as I am concerned.

But if the DM runs everything "by the book" -- i.e. only uses monster from the MM and traps from the DMG and the like, isn't it the same thing?

 

[TwinBahamut]

But if the DM runs everything "by the book" -- i.e. only uses monster from the MM and traps from the DMG and the like, isn't it the same thing?

No, not at all.

There is huge a difference between knowing the stats for a goblin and knowing that there are eight goblins hiding behind the pillars on the far side of the bridge over the Underdark chasm. The former is found in the rulebooks, but the second will never be found in a rulebook.

 

[Lanefan]

No, not at all.

There is huge a difference between knowing the stats for a goblin and knowing that there are eight goblins hiding behind the pillars on the far side of the bridge over the Underdark chasm. The former is found in the rulebooks, but the second will never be found in a rulebook.

True enough...but once those 8 show themselves, someone with full knowledge of the rulebooks as pertains to goblins is probably going to approach the situation differently than someone who only knows the rulebooks as pertains to her own character; and that difference is the essence of the problem.

Side note, and a heads-up for all DM's of all pre-4e editions: I have never banned a book from my games entirely, to the point that if you own it you are not in my game, until today: I saw something on the shelf called "Dungeon Survival Guide". What it is is a Coles Notes on about 20-25 classic adventure modules, from Keep on the Borderlands to Forge of Fury, with hints and tips on what to do and not do...and as I intend to eventually run some of those very adventures in my next campaign - preferably without having to spend extra effort altering things just because of some bozo's bloody book - the path of least resistance is just ban the book.

Sigh.

Lanefan

 

[Campbell]

I wouldn't mind a note in the MM and the trap section of the DMG advising players that reading them might spoil the play experience for them. I am however hesitant to support any efforts to mystify the role of the GM. I don't think anything is gained by treating GMing is some sort of arcane art that only the few are capable of performing. It intimidates players that might otherwise be interested in running their own games. It also creates an unnatural degree of seperation between player and GM when both should be stakeholders in a given game's success.

 

[Reynard]

I am however hesitant to support any efforts to mystify the role of the GM. I don't think anything is gained by treating GMing is some sort of arcane art that only the few are capable of performing. It intimidates players that might otherwise be interested in running their own games. It also creates an unnatural degree of seperation between player and GM when both should be stakeholders in a given game's success.

While I agree with you in spirit, the fact is that GMing is not for everyone and not something everyone can do well. First of all, there's a much larger investment of time and effort on the part of the DM than the players. Even if the DM just uses prepared modules in a default setting, he still has to prepare for using those. Second, there's a lot more at-the-table type of work that the DM has to do: he has to run all the NPCs and monsters, adjudicate rules, manage the players and the pace of the game and so on.

On the subject of DM disempowerment: basically, any time the game hands power over to the rules, it is handing power over to the players because the DM "serves at the pleasure" of the players. Only by their consent is he the DM, and therefore he must negotiate with them any changes in the rules. This isn't necessarily a bad thing at times, but it is a side effect of a more comprehensive and detailed rules system.