Player's Owning the Monster Manual?

[JeffB]

And after finding that little discussion between you and jeffh, I have to say I agree. Since I was a kid in the late 70's ..the monster stuff was off limits to players..same with the MM when it appeared, and the same thing now.

Funny..we never had a problem with players wanting to own the MM years and years ago. I never bought it till I started DM'ing. Were I a player instead of a 100% of the time DM , I wouldn't even have bought any version of it..ruins the fun, and makes for total metagame thinking, IME.

Players get the PHB at the table and a CRS in my games.. that's it...Don't use splats or anything besides core rules, so no need for those either.

 

[The Forsaken One]

You might find this usefull...

All summoned things statted... just a click away..

 

[Janos Antero]

Well, you know a topic is dead to honest discussion the moment someone yells facist.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

That was a honest observation, in responce real experience, Janos Antero. A lack of sycophantic behavior is not the end of honest discussion but the beginning of it.

 

[Gothmog]

I have to agree with arnwyn, players at my table cannot reference the MM or monster books during play. Its too tempting to metagame with those resources easily available, and D&D is more than which stats or monsters are the most advantageous. Note I didn't say I don't want players to own the MM or other monster books, just not reference them during play. Thats not fascism, its a houserule, and a perfectly legitimate one.

One thing I have found that helps a lot with monster summoning spells is to use the DMG variant that requires specific monsters to be summoned. Casters must find out about the creature they wish to summon and bargain with it for service. That way, the DM has the monster info ahead of time, and the player gets to RP with the monster to some degree and develop a bond rather than "I summon a lesser xorn to attack enemy x." Thats just plain boring.

 

[hong]

In our group, the players may not even *touch* the MMs, much less look through it at any time.

Gotta watch those DAMN MONSTER CQQTIES, mang.


Hong "unclean! unclean!" Ooi

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I have to agree with arnwyn, players at my table cannot reference the MM or monster books during play...

That is fine and a commendable policy. However, as the name of the thread flatly states, this is about players "owning" copies of the MM. This is far different than a simple restriction not to bring them to the game table. Arnwyn flatly states...

...the players may not even *touch* the MMs, much less look through it...

This, I reiterate, I just milquetoast fascism and weak willed tyranny. To demand that players obey the game master to this degree above and beyond the game is, at best, an exercise in foolish vanity.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Milquetoast Fascism

I understand your reasoning, GC; After all, my newly appointed DM is a Player in my own game. Learning the MM doesn't concern me, however, so much as...

These are tools in the hands of the players so that they can justifiably question the authority of what the game master is doing.

If it becomes used to preach some form of Dogma ("...But the Monster Manual doesn't give them Whirlwind Attack, it gives them [Some other Feat]..."), then the tool is simply being used for the opposite means: To control the DM.

Granted, I agree with most of your stance (my not reading Minions or Monsternomicon, and my Players not reading Monster Manual 2, Tome of Horrors and Bestiary Loerem, and a few other choice selections, is entirely voluntary on all our parts, not dictated by anyone). I'm just cautioning that this line of reasoning opens the door to an equally bothersome problem.

Indeed, I'd say that both of these issues (dictating DMs and dogmatic Players) tend to feed each other.

 

[Dinkeldog]

The MM is just about a necessity for a wildshaping druid or polymorphing wizard/sorcerer/ranger, as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

2Dinkeldog: Exactly one of the things I wanted to say.

In our group, currently every single player also masters D&D. Some of them have deeper insights in the ruleworks and the source books than other ones, but we all now the basics, and we all need the books to do this job, including the Monster Manual.

In one of these campaigns, I am playing a high level shifter with access to nearly every form available, and so I even have to look up statistitics during play, in the middle of combat.
My personal limitation is:
Never look up the statistics of a monster you face, even if I know the creature UNLESS the Dungeon Masters allows you to look it up thanks to a succesful Knowledge Check. (We use Nature, Arcana, Religion or the Planes for these things...)

Anyway, sometimes I (and other of my players) still remember monster abilities, and it is practically impossible to pretend you wouldn`t know it.
But why should we do? We are talking about heroes, that have several experiences with monsters, and that hear much about these things. Many monsters are commonly known (even if not seen that often).
Sure, some of the information a character might get is wrong, but so are the information we store in our head. And sometimes, unusual class, spell or template combinations might even lead us false...

Mustrum Ridcully