Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tx7321" data-source="post: 3336080" data-attributes="member: 43146">My impression was that the MM was only to be used by players AFTER clearing it with their DM, mostly to read about their race (elf, half orc, halfling, gnome, dwarf), read about their horse, dog etc. and general "world knowledge" for instance our original DM allowed the ranger in the group to read some of the giant class descriptions).  I'm sure the player was expected to read only what the DM suggested or agreed to so that the player(s) didn't "spoil the surprise" not just for themselves, but everyone else at the table (how many HD does a troll have, what do you use to kill it etc.).   Lets face it, in every group there was one guy who sat at home and memorized every monster description and then magically new how to deal with it when encountered for the first time at the table (often DMs saw these guy as the "pain in the a$$" player).  These players liked looking smarter then everyone else.  They didn't understand, the point of the game is to have fun figuring stuff out as you go, not out manuver the DM or module writer by memorizing monster weaknesses etc.  I have no problem with players reading parts of the MM as long as they clear it with me first. this kind of freedom to skim through the MM does get the player "into" the game and lends alot of flavor (esp. for monsters they would likley know something about like orcs, goblins, etc. and ones that they've wondered about since child hood like dragons and pixies etc.).  The idea is to let players see enough to be excited about the game, but not so much to take away the mystery.  The player should be left in the dark as long as possible (the first few sessions at least) for their benefit.  You only get to be a new player once.  I am a realist and I know most players went and read the 1E rules and MM anyway.  But they did so with the mindset that they were going to change the game experiance for themselves, an dmost were preparing themselves to be a DM as well (which is fine).  My point is that ideally the player get to experiance the game from the perspective of the player at least a few times before digging into the rules and monster specifics.  Afterall the point is to experiance "make believe".  Just as we all crave to know how a magician does his tricks, and then once we know wish we didn't.  Often times too much knowledge can lead to a jaded and bored person.  Let the DM spin his illusions if you want to experiance magic.dcas,  Perhaps calling DM "GOD" was a bad metiphor on my part.  Lets just say he's the CEO.  A good DM encourages players to field questions about rules their uncertain of as they come up, and allow them to object to things that they find grossly unfair (the DM is a busy guy afterall and makes mistakes).  However, if your  Nell Feldman down from accounting at your first board room meeting, don't try to talk over the CEO, or nit pick the CEO, or the CEO will likely drop a ton of bricks on your head.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   The best way to deal with serious rules discussion is after the game or during breaks.  You shouldn't be telling the DM "you don't understand this or that" during the game unless he's asking. What was great about 1E is the DM always could fall back on "non of these rules are written in stone comment by Gygax, "see it says right here in the rule book", and I'm doing it this way, don't like it maybe this isn't the game for you".   The idea was that the flow of the game was paramount to having fun, and the game couldn't flow if the players kept pushing the DM around. Anyhow, variations in the DMs style resulted in a less predictable game and usually made it more exciting (thats why its fun to sit with different DMs now and then).  If a players PC died from an altered rule, the player just rolled up a new PC and didn't throw a cow.  In 1E the DM was encouraged to be "master and commander" of his own ship, and variation between tables was seen as a good thing.  And his players (his crew) were encouraged to back him up.  If they didn't like one captain, find another or mutiny.  In 1E the DM is like Kirk, he was never questioned by his crew openly (just the occasional raised eyebrow by Spock).  The good player was like Sulu, always trusting his captain.  3E seems more like "The Next Generation" with everyone on the bridge (including the 13 year old piloting the Enterprise) questioning Picard openly.  And every order being countermanded and then recountermanded by Number 1 or the fat psychic psychologist chick (hell they even sat together).   It got so bad you didn't know who was in command.   Perhaps 3E was designed for this new mindset.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />  It did get developed around the same time.Anyhow, to each their own.  I'm sure alot of players of 3E find the "rules mastery" part of the game to be one of its greatest strengths.  Of course, the 3E DM should should be mentally prepared to go fetch his own fresh beer and chips.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /></blockquote>

Verification