DMG & MM: Players Stay Out?

[Jackelope King]

Point the first: I play in a game where three of the 5~7 players actively take turns running story arcs in a shared world. No way that sort of sentiment would work for us.

Point the second: Are we really trying to push back the clock to a time when the game actively required the DM keeping the players ignorant of simple (and often vital) rules-information so as to provide something like a "sense of wonder"? Been there. Done that. Hated it.

That said, I have absolutely nothing against the DMG becoming a book more worthy of its name, providing all the rules for quickly creating NPCs, robust random generators for NPCs, monsters, environments, and the like. If there's no rules in the DMG that the players need, and it's just a solid collection of DM aides to help them make the game run smoother (both through prep and through actual helpful in-game tools like the aforementioned random generators) then I've got zero problems with it. It's the notion of going back to the idea that players need to be ignorant to have fun that is absolutely antithetical to how I approach gaming, both while playing and running the game.

 

[mmadsen]

And even memorizing both DMG and MM is not going to tell you all the "secrets of the game and its meta-setting", since a vast amount of those are (intentionally or not) modified and created anew whenever a DM starts running his game.

I believe all those secrets are modified and created anew whenever an experienced DM starts running his game. New DMs are likely to be either oblivious or to go by the book.

I'd love to see the books "parameterized" with multiple variations on each idea, so a DM might choose which ideas play out which way in his own campaign, but he'd have good examples to pick and choose from.

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

As a grognard (the wargaming kind) I know precisely the abilities of the enemy units I may encounter. My familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of of the TigerE vs an Easy Eight makes me more afraid when the Tigers crest the hill, not less. Even lesser opposition, such as a platoon of IIIj tanks instead of Tigers, can cause the bottom to fall out of my stomach when I suddenly realize I am flanked by a well concealed platoon of Hetzers.

Knowledge of the foe helps. But it only helps so much. If your players are not challenged by the encounters you are building, add more monsters, or traps, or change the terrain. You can easily design entire campaigns using no foe but orcs and never have two similar battles. Player surprise is great. But it is the DM's job to surprise the players, not the player's job to remain ignorant.

 

[S'mon]

I agree strongly. And of course most keen players will have looked at the DMG and MM, perhaps they're DMs in their own games. The important thing is not player ignorance, but establishing that the contents of the DMG and MM are the province of the DM, to use and to change as he/she sees fit. The PHB is the province of the players, and players need to be informed of changes to rules in the PHB, but they have no business disputing over DMG/MM stuff - the availability of prestige classes, precise wealth by level (I think it's good though that players say "We want a high-items game/We're ok with few magic items" and discuss it with GM so they're all on the same page, but no whining about being 2,000gp short at 5th level) or whether magic can be bought & sold. If item creation is in the DMG, then likewise it's the province of the DM to alter as he sees fit.

 

[S'mon]

IThen, as a result of not having all the information, players will either end up acting on incorrect assumptions - and get frustrated when they do something which sounds like it'd make sense, but just doesn't work given the rules and/or setting, resulting in characters getting hurt, wasting money, or just looking foolish...

Well perish the thought the thought that something bad should ever happen to the PCs! :\

 

[Reynard]

I think learning a new game is fun and a totally different kind of fun than playing a game you know well. As long as the DM is conveying information in such a way that players (and their characters) can respond to circumstances appropriately, there's no need for the players to know the actual contents of the rules. For example, that immersion in lava causes 20d6 damage is not a rule a player needs to know. That getting immersed in lava will likley kill you is all that's necessary.

Monsters are a different issue. When the inexperienced PCs encounter a new creature for the first time, they should be be surprised. The best way to emulate that in game is for the players to actually be surprised. As the game progresses and chatracters and players encounter more and different creatures, they build a body of knowledge from which they can begin to make educated guesses about what their enemies are capable of. There is both and in-game and meta-game level of mastery over the milieu which is far more worthwhile and satisfying than any amount of XP.

Utlimately, the most impractical aspect of the whole idea is that WotC would not, for understandable economic reasons, want to cut 4/5's of their potential customers out of 2/3's of their publications.

 

[Lobo Lurker]

I think you guys are missing WotC's angle in all this. Releasing a book that only 20% of their already niche market will buy isn't good business sense. They'll want to put something for everyone in every single book so as to boost sales.

You may not like it, but if they don't do that then they eventually go the way of TSR (bankrupt and out of business). If you like playing DnD and want WotC to keep releasing future products then you have to accept that era of "DM only" books has gone the way of the dodo.

 

[Counterspin]

I want players to be able to look in the MM so they can peruse for races they'd like to play, and I'm not just talking gnomes, I'm talking all sorts of crazy stuff. And since I reskin pretty much everything, I've got no problem with the sense of wonder issue, because at the end of my combats even my fellow GMs generally don't know what baddie from the MM they've faced.

The stuff in the DMG is general game physics stuff, like how dangerous lava is and how hard steel is. I want the players to have access to the physics info in the DMG so that they understand how the world they're playing in works and aren't broadsided unintentionally by a weird rule. If players are going to be jumping into lava, I want them to make the decision knowing whether they're taking a solid hit for the team or making the ultimate sacrifice.

It all comes down to me wanting to give the players all the tools available to make their in character decisions as their character, who's been living in the D&D universe since birth, would.

 

[Davelozzi]

I think you guys are missing WotC's angle in all this. Releasing a book that only 20% of their already niche market will buy isn't good business sense. They'll want to put something for everyone in every single book so as to boost sales.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone pointed this out. I agree with you, no matter what our preference is, WotC does not want to encourage people not to buy their books.

 

[Reynard]

So it all comes down to me wanting to give the players all the tools available to make their in character decisions as their character, who's been living in the D&D universe since birth, would.

At issue with this though is how much the rules actually represent the physics of the universe versus how much they serve as an abstraction. For example, the lava thing. If the rules are the physics of the game, and the player characters are supposed to understand how the world works, then it is common knowledge that lava is far more dangerous to the inexperienced than it is to the experienced, and far more dangerous to masters of the mystical arts than it is to great-axe wielding barbarians. I am not sure this is the kind of understanding of the world the PCs should be enagaging in.

It isn't metagaming that I have a problem with -- gaming *is* metagaming. Rather, it is that the benefits of discovery outweigh the costs.