Hiding the PHB from players - Cool or Restrictive?

[Family]

Hate the player, not the game.

 

[Belorin]

I voted to let them read the PHB and also give them a list of playable monsters in the MM. However I would also tell them in advance if certain races, classes or monsters were unavailable or revised.

Bel

 

[Hammerhead]

Yeah, trying to "confiscate" any kind of book would pretty much be a walking issue for me.

I mean, my group hates the people who don't know the rules. And you're trying to encourage this?

 

[rhm001]

I went with the "Players have rights" (Players of the world unite! An end to the senseless manipulation of the Player-latariat! ). However, I do think there is a more "middle of the road" option.

Ask the players to come up with character concepts and let you know before the session. That way, they come in with ideas, so using the book goes a little quicker for everyone, you know they've thought things out and have an opportunity to fit them in to your setting, and they don't feel like you're hiding anything from them.

 

[Family]

I went with the "Players have rights"

Hey, I'm a spokesmonster for fey rights. ...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I would definitely refuse to play in a game built on this concept.

Defining guidelines for what is acceptable to fit the campaign setting: good.

Hiding game mechanics and options from the players: bad.

 

[drjones]

Not letting players get some good advice on how to play the game is just making things harder on yourself and on them.

And there is nothing wrong with a player knowing some monster stats or reading the DMG either really, if they are obviously trying to screw with the game it is very easy for the DM to mix stats up and give the old shaft to their metagaming plans. But I don't play with people like that anyway.

 

[Nifft]

what type of game does an RPG suggest you are playing?

Clearly a rocket propelled grenade.

However, you did use the word "game". Would you play any game where you weren't allowed to look at the rules?

I think most players can figure out a character with a bit of fluff provided. (...) you don't cloud their mind with stats and numbers you light their imagination with background and concepts.

There's more to a character than just who they are. There's also what they can do. The rules define that.

For example, when someone says "swashbuckler", they're thinking of more than clothing and upbringing. They're also thinking of the sorts of things he can do socially and in combat. And here's the kicker: "swashbuckler" can mean different things to different people.

By hiding the rules, you are deciding that your interpretation of the word "swashbuckler" defines what someone else's character can do. When he sees one of your "pirates" swing from a rope, and he can't do the same thing (because you decided disarming guards was more important than chandelier straphanging), he will rightly feel annoyance that he wasn't allowed to choose how his concept got implemented.

Good luck, and if you try this, I honestly do hope your players give you another chance afterwards. It sounds like your intentions aren't bad.

Cheers, -- N

 

[BlueBlackRed]

The very idea disturbs me.

 

[Family]

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

/Just an opinion, results may vary.