DMG & MM: Players Stay Out?

[Sphyre]

I'm of several opinions on this.

First, I think that all the material a player needs should be available in the PHB. 3.x having all the magic items and prestige classes in the DMG was a big mistake, I think.

This looks like what they're doing with 4e.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217367200

The Player’s Handbook presents the official Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game rules as well as everything a player needs to create D&D characters worthy of song and legend: new character races, base classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, powers, magic items, weapons, armor, and much more.

It even has magic items, which means players can make "wish lists" without getting into the DMG.

Second, the monster manual may be available for everyone to refer to, especially when it comes to summoning, but I think player's should restrict themselves in how carefully they read the monster descriptions and stats. If they want to ruin the fun for themselves, that's fine, but then they've got to add extra caution to make sure they don't mix player knowledge with character knowledge. If you're starting out at 1st level in a campaign, it's highly unlikely that your character will know much of anything that exists in the MM.

I'm very strict about meta-gaming. I will flat out tell a meta-gamer that his character doesn't do what he's chosen to do based off meta-gaming. Yes, that means I'm taking control of his/her character. Why? Because they are taking control of my control of the world's flow of information. Their character shouldn't know what they are using, and therefor they can be in the world or not. If they want to argue I can just stop running the game as a DM. It's no fun for me as a DM if a player is being dishonest, and in return I'll be equally honest and fair with them.

Of course, this is only the worst scenario. I make sure I come to an understanding with my players ahead of time that this is a cooperative game and we're playing together to have fun, not work against each other; and for that reason.

It looks like players will truly only need a PhB in 4e, while the DMG and MM will strictly be DM tools, but I don't care if people look at them. There's a sense of wonder and excitement in my games despite people knowing that kobolds are weak little things. It made it that much sweeter when they fought a whole cavern full of 5th to 6th level kobolds, varying from psions, psychic warriors, barbarians and sorcerers as opposed to pathetic rats.

 

[kennew142]

I guess I've always been lucky in that my players would never try to look up something they were fighting in the middle of an encounter. I sometimes have a player look up problematic rules, but these are usually in the PHB. Since more than half of the group I play with are GMs in their own right, it would not be possible for them to eschew the MM and DMG.

I also don't think that a GM has the power to prevent players from reading whatever books they want. I've always been of the opinion that any game is more fun when everyone has a basic understanding of the rules.

My players often take out a MM or a DMG at the table. When they do, I trust that they are looking up things pertinent to their characters. Sometimes it is a magic item they own. Sometimes it is a monster they are summoning. Sometimes it is an obscure rule governing some action that they are considering so that they can understand the full implications of their character's actions.

I've been lucky in that I've never had to resort to some of the high-handed tactics I've heard in this thread. If any GM ever started penalizing my character xp for my actions, or handing out random damage, or in any way attempting to punish me like a child, it would be the last time we ever gamed together. It would likely be the last time we ever spoke to one another. I've never bought into the idea that the GM is GOD. The absolute authority over the story, the campaign and the rules disputes - certainly. GOD, not so much. IMO, that way lies abuse.

Furthermore, I always reserve the right to dispute rules. A bad ruling from a GM can result in character death, or a really bad time for everyone. Once a GM has listened and given a ruling, the dispute must stop. Agree or disagree, the GM has the final say. The idea that a player has no interest in seeing that the game is fair seems ridiculous to me.

Just my 2 cp.

 

[Hussar]

Thunderfoot - that's certainly one approach.

I take another. When I DM, I have a dedicated rules guru nominated at the table. Whenever a player has a rules question, they don't ask me and interrupt whatever I'm doing at the time with mechanics issues, thus bogging the game down while I hunt through rule books. Instead, they ask the rules guru in a quiet voice during a point in the game when the spotlight isn't focused on them.

By the time I get around to them, they have the answer to their question and they can simply state their intended action, rhyme off the applicable mechanic and get on with the action.

It works for the DM as well. I can ask a sidebar question to the rules guru and then get on with the game and come back when she has the answer.

Everyone should have a rules guru. Makes the game so much better.

 

[Lanefan]

A few things here:

1. I have a nice situation should I choose to use it (however unlikely* that is): were I to start a 4e game I for sure would be the only 4e DM in our extended crew, probably for quite some time. As such, the DMG and MM would be off-limits to the players and I could make it stick.
* - yet it now looks like my Decast campaign will coincidentally start right around the time of 4e release.

2. Sphyre has it right about the metagaming smackdown. It usually only ever has to be done once, if at all; but some players just don't get it. My tangentially-related problem is one of players making suggestions as to what someone else's character should do, when said player's characters have no way of knowing what is going on (e.g. a PC is off scouting alone and gets in trouble).

3. Any DM is over time going to build up a collection of tables, charts, magic items, etc. that are not in any book. Unless required for character generation, these should be DM only. I have a red binder for such things...

4. Changing up the monsters is a good idea, and I'm trying to at least change a lot of the names for Decast, but they'll still guess right for most of 'em...

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

I think it's a matter of boundaries during play (I'm the DM, you're the player; you don't tell me I'm doing it wrong) than access to the information.

Yes - the important point is that players have no business referencing the DM's tools - the DMG and MM - during play, because she should control that side of the game. 3e blurred this by eg:

1. Free trade in magic items as the default - requires players to refer to the DMG magic items section to see what they can buy.

2. Summoning rules seem to require that players reference Monster Manual to see what to summon. I don't recall this in prior editions. Edit: I think maybe prior summoning spells were random?

 

[Lanefan]

2. Summoning rules seem to require that players reference Monster Manual to see what to summon. I don't recall this in prior editions. Edit: I think maybe prior summoning spells were random?

Yes, they were; and better for it too. If a player was constantly casting summon spells, all the DM needed to do was generate a representative for each monster type on the table (not many), then clone it for each one summoned (the number you got was random too). Easy.

Lanefan

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Ah. In general...nah....read all ya want. Just no reference during play.

That's pretty ridiculous. Are you just assuming a worst-case scenario where players want to read the stats of the monster they're fighting, or would it really not be okay with you if maybe they looked up a magic item they might want to craft?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

This priveleged DM information used to be crucial for game settings too. Now every setting book is tailored to both players and DMs. Where are the plot secrets anymore?

If your players can't keep what they know firewalled from what their characters know, you've got bigger problems than their owning a copy of the setting sourcebook.

Though I note that the Forgotten Realms is getting a Player's Guide and a Campaign Guide this time around . . .

Plus, many of the biggest secrets in the Eberron setting are deliberately left undefined, which is another way to do it. Who caused the Mourning? The DM decides. What are the identities and agenda of the lords of Stormreach? The DM decides.

 

[S'mon]

That's pretty ridiculous. Are you just assuming a worst-case scenario where players want to read the stats of the monster they're fighting, or would it really not be okay with you if maybe they looked up a magic item they might want to craft?

Me and Grazzt seem to be on the same page.

1. There are people on this thread who ARE claiming a player's right to look at whatever bit of the MM they want, whenever they want. Which is going to include when fighting monster X.

2. Re item crafting, the default 3e approach requires players with Craft Wondrous be able to look up all the Wondrous items to see what they can make. But I think this is bad design. I'd prefer a system where the PC decided very generally what they wanted - "a flaming sword" - and then had to research it in-game, with the GM telling them what they thought they could make and what the requirements were. It should be easier than in 1e (no Wishes for +1 swords), but much harder than in 3e.

 

[S'mon]

Re plot secrets - I actually think it's fine for the setting book to say "X is a mystery" and leave it up to the GM to determine the truth about X. I think this is much better than a book for players describing in detail the truth about X.