Player access to the Monster Manual

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

I own a copy of the MM. I usually look through everything at the bookstore. One of my friends was going to run something and had chosen out several monster from the New (at the time) MM2. I knew none of this accept that he was going to run "something". I told him that had some cool things in the MM2 and he freaked out. "Everythings ruined now...Blah Blah Blah". I've looked through many of the monster or "DM only" books many times and the truth is I can't recall anything except the "cool" pictures. Like I'm suppose to remember what if any special attacks a drider has? I mean come on. There is so much information that unless you have NO life and read the MM all the time your dm is good to go. I totally agree no player should look things up WHILE your playing. That's just obvious. Some things are sooo common that you've got to change. You're fighting a troll. You may have never faced one before but your still itching to get a torch. Your fightin one of those dogs with it's face peeled back (I can't remember the name) and I'm just whacking it with my weapon. The average player isn't going to know much but no player should have the MM at their disposal while your playing.

A side note: They should have put the stats for familiars and animals for the summon spells in the players handbook.

 

[cidak]

What, is being DM not enough power already?

For me it is not about power, it's more that PC's are not likely to know all of the abilities and weaknesses of the monster they are fighting. Separating Player and Character knowledge. If they have a good knowledge(nature) score and roll well (at least DC 20) then I would consider it, but why should PC's who have never encountered a monster with no knowledge skills, know the strengths and weakness of that monster.

That is why I don't allow it.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

That is why I don't allow it.

Indeed, it's the best reason of all.

On my own account, as a player in an Oathbound game, I had sworn off a number of books: Monsternomicon, Oathbound and all of its supplements, Into the Green and Into the Black. I did this specifically because my PC, just like me, would be new to the setting and have no familiarity with anything within it. Recently, the Monsternomicon opened itself to me (the GM announced that she had used everything from it that she wanted to), and I have indeed found it a delight. However, the feeling of not knowing what I was up against, what it could do, even what it wanted, having only its description and immediate actions to base my own actions on, was a thrill I've not had as a player in nearly a decade.

I'm fairly certain I'm going to give her first dibs on Tome of Horrors II just to keep that going.

 

[ph0rk]

If there is a requirement for stats for a summoned monster and the Player in questions doesn't have it then the spell fails. They are responsible for preparing everything for their character before the game session. Just as if they had a cohort, or mount, or animal companion.

So a druid must have printed stat blocks for every creature they are capable of summoning?

Should a wizard have printed stat blocks for every creature he is capable of summoning? (read the description for gate, please).

Just as things don't always go the way the DM plans, same for the players - tactics can change mid-session.

Say Peter the Wizard was fighting ice monsters and he decided to summon some fire elementals - something he usually wouldn't do, but is doing now because of the giant walking blocks of ice trying to kill him. Are you going to tell me the player I can't because I don't have the stat block in front of me?

 

[cidak]

Say Peter the Wizard was fighting ice monsters and he decided to summon some fire elementals - something he usually wouldn't do, but is doing now because of the giant walking blocks of ice trying to kill him. Are you going to tell me the player I can't because I don't have the stat block in front of me?

No I probably wouldn't prevent the spell from being cast. Mainly because I want my players to have fun playing the game and I don't think stopping the spell would add to the occasion. I would treat this as an exception to the rule however.

I have made it clear to my players that they are responsible for have the stats available. I don't believe that is too much to ask of them, especially with the SRD available, so all they have to do is cut and paste and they are prepared. I would rather do that than stop the game for 5 minutes while they look up the monster, work out which they are going to summon, modify it if they have augmented summoning and put it into play. They are happy to run with it and have accepted that responsibility.

 

[kamosa]

I guess I just have wierd players. I can't ever remember getting mad at them for knowing the game or looking something up in the manual. I know as a GM, I can't describe everything about a monster in a three second description. I rely on the players to bring their experiences and knowledge to the game to give them a better insight into the adventure.


In my game we emphasize that the characters are in the battle not the players. I expect them to ignore any player knowledge that their characters wouldn't know. If a player has a character with strong monster knowledge (like a ranger with favored enemy) I wouldn't stop them from looking up the monster in the book. At the same time, I can't remember the last time a player cracked open the MM to "spy" on my monsters. As I said they work from what their character's know, and getting more player knowledge doesn't necessarily help them at that moment.

I guess at the heart of the matter is GM - Player trust. Without it you are constantly playing power and knowledge games with the players. With it, you can consentrate on running the game and having fun.

But then the players at my table average over 20 years of gaming experience. The days of pulling a new monster suprise out of the manual have been over for at least 15 years.