DMG & MM: Players Stay Out?

[Campbell]

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.

I am in complete agreement with you here. That's part of the reason why I believe it is as important to reduce barriers to entry for new GMs. While reducing monster and NPC complexity is a solid start I also think lifting the veil a little and encouraging players to understand what a GM does is probably even more important. I think additional understanding can only lead to an increased level of cooperation between players and GMs.

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.

This is an issue not necessarily with rules, but with the game's culture. The 3e DMG did a disservice to the game by advocating such extreme caution on a GM's part when it came to altering rules or diverging from the baselines given. The DMG also lacked transparency - the black box nature of EL/CR and Wealth by Level guidelines left a GM alone in the dark when they chose to diverge from the game's assumptions. The issue here is that rules should not be held sacrosanct, but treated as tools to construct the type of game that you're after. I'm encouraged by the "Tools, Not Rules" mantra I keep hearing from 4e's designers.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

I do understand that is the concern, but as I explained above, I just don't think that the change in approach created by a player having an idea of what goblins are capable of is inherently problematic. I consider that, unless you have a player with photographic memory or the book open in the middle of combat (which isn't the topic of this thread), the information a player is most likely to remember from a Monster Manual entry will either be the kind of information that the player will learn very quickly into the fight, or the kind of information that a good DM should be trying to give the player as efficiently as possible.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

This is true, but at the same time, this is all the more reason more players should feel encouraged to DM.

Unless a person actually tries to run a game, there is absolutely no way to know how good a DM that person may be. Putting up barriers between normal players and DMs reduces the chance that a normal player might try DMing. A person who has the potential to be a great a DM may never give it a try because they are happy enough at being a player, and it seems too difficult to be a DM. Alternatively, a group of players may stick with a bad DM, because none of them want to try DMing themselves.

 

[Reynard]

I do understand that is the concern, but as I explained above, I just don't think that the change in approach created by a player having an idea of what goblins are capable of is inherently problematic. I consider that, unless you have a player with photographic memory or the book open in the middle of combat (which isn't the topic of this thread), the information a player is most likely to remember from a Monster Manual entry will either be the kind of information that the player will learn very quickly into the fight, or the kind of information that a good DM should be trying to give the player as efficiently as possible.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not advocating a style of play in which players are never allowed to know how things work. Rather, I am merely pointing out that if ever there was a time for long time players to practice a little self denial so as to be able to enjoy D&D in a way they haven't been able to for 10 or 20 or 30 years (depending on how long it has been), this is it.

 

[Hussar]

Don't get me wrong -- I am not advocating a style of play in which players are never allowed to know how things work. Rather, I am merely pointing out that if ever there was a time for long time players to practice a little self denial so as to be able to enjoy D&D in a way they haven't been able to for 10 or 20 or 30 years (depending on how long it has been), this is it.

I find your assumptions flawed.

4e is not going to be massively different from 3e. Probably less mechanically different than 2e was to 3e. The d20 mechanics aren't going to change. If you've been playing with Bo9S and latter era 3e books, then most of the mechanics are going to be known anyway.

In any case, you're going to know that a plain jane orc is a weak opponent. A giant is a tough one. Sure, you might not know the exact stats for that creature, but, who cares? You can still pretty much guess any of that. The only "sense of wonder" that you get from rules ignorance is dispelled in about one month of play.

After that, you've pretty much got a handle on how things work.

Then again, as I said earlier, I grew up on the best version of Basic/Expert D&D, so the division between player and DM wasn't anywhere near as enshrined as it became in later versions of the game. Even playing twenty some years ago in my parents basement with my fellow 6th grade players, we all took turns DMing. Whoever bought the module or made the dungeon got to DM. The idea of a single DM for a campaign never came up for us until I got well into 2e.

 

[Reynard]

I find your assumptions flawed.

4e is not going to be massively different from 3e. Probably less mechanically different than 2e was to 3e. The d20 mechanics aren't going to change. If you've been playing with Bo9S and latter era 3e books, then most of the mechanics are going to be known anyway.

I'm not talking about action resolution mechanics.

In any case, you're going to know that a plain jane orc is a weak opponent. A giant is a tough one. Sure, you might not know the exact stats for that creature, but, who cares? You can still pretty much guess any of that. The only "sense of wonder" that you get from rules ignorance is dispelled in about one month of play.

Except that flies directly in the face of the design intent of 4E. *Every* creature is supposed to be unique and serve a specific function in the game. W&M says righ there that they went through a bunch of trouble figuring out the best way to mechanically differentiate a lot of the clone creatures: orcs, hobgoblins and gnolls, for example. Same with different types of giants. So while you may want to think everything is going to be ho-hum in 4E, the designers have stated their goal to be exactly the opposite.

After that, you've pretty much got a handle on how things work.

And that's good. Part of the point of discovering the game again is to master it again. But if you -- the player -- indulge yourself by reading the DMG and the MM when you don't need to, then tha discovery is lost and then it becomes a process of simply mastering the mechanics. There's no "Wow!" moments because you knew they were all coming -- maybe not exactly when, but since you read about the monsters and the encounter traps, you knew what levels to expect them at and what roles they filled, as well as how to take them out easily.

 

[Fenes]

But if you -- the player -- indulge yourself by reading the DMG and the MM when you don't need to, then tha discovery is lost and then it becomes a process of simply mastering the mechanics. There's no "Wow!" moments because you knew they were all coming -- maybe not exactly when, but since you read about the monsters and the encounter traps, you knew what levels to expect them at and what roles they filled, as well as how to take them out easily.

Monster stats never made me go "wow!". Plot twists, unexpected developments, drama - that makes me go "wow!". But stats and traps? Not really.

 

[Reynard]

Monster stats never made me go "wow!". Plot twists, unexpected developments, drama - that makes me go "wow!". But stats and traps? Not really.

You were never taken aback by a cool monster power/ability that you hadn't seen before? Never impressed by the way a specific trap worked?

I certainly hope all your games have been full of regular plot twists, unexpected developments and drama if those are the only elements that make you go "wow".

 

[Fenes]

You were never taken aback by a cool monster power/ability that you hadn't seen before? Never impressed by the way a specific trap worked?

No. Never saw a "cool" monster power/ability either that I had not seen/read about before somewhere before, often outside D&D.

"Oh, look, the red dragon is immune to cold!" just has not the same impact for me as "What? The red dragon is in league with the local mayor, who sent us to kill it? Why would he do that, and whose side is he really on... or is this just a planted red herring by the dragon?"

I certainly hope all your games have been full of regular plot twists, unexpected developments and drama if those are the only elements that make you go "wow".

Since I usually DM, I try my best to make it so. But then, I rarely expect to be "wowed" in a game either, just entertained. I'd rather say "that was entertaining!" than "wow!" anytime.

 

[Reynard]

No. Never saw a "cool" monster power/ability either that I had not seen/read about before somewhere before, often outside D&D.

"Oh, look, the red dragon is immune to cold!" just has not the same impact for me as "What? The red dragon is in league with the local mayor, who sent us to kill it? Why would he do that, and whose side is he really on... or is this just a planted red herring by the dragon?"



Since I usually DM, I try my best to make it so. But then, I rarely expect to be "wowed" in a game either, just entertained. I'd rather say "that was entertaining!" than "wow!" anytime.

To each his own, of course. I just happen to think that those surprise moments are entertaining.