Question, RE: DM's wanting players "in the dark"

[Tsyr]

Reading the "Why is the MM a core book" thread brought back to the surface of my thoughts an issue I was thinking about a year or so ago.

Now, I can understand not wanting players to metagame information from the MM, or quote rules to the DM when the DM is deliberatly "rule-0-ing" them... but... I mean, really, why all the dislike for players owning a DMG? I ask my players not to read a module I'm planning on using in some form, granted, but the DMG or MM? Heck, if they wanna read them, why should I stick my nose in, or even really care? So what if they know that you can make a Sword of Coolabilty#15... it doesn't mean I would let them make it (I don't let a player just say "I'm gonna make X!"... the character has to know how... thats another topic...). As long as players understand rule 0 (they shouldn't game if they don't) and they aren't rampant metagamers, what's really the big deal?

And how would you deal with a DM who wanted to join your group if you're like that? "Sorry, you know The Big Secrets (TM), you can't play here!". Or what about a player who wanted to DM? Or a person in two groups?

I guess I just don't understand... it sounds too much (to my ears) like blatantly not trusting players... And I'm very much NOT of the school of thought that the players and DM are in competition.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Now, I can understand not wanting players to metagame information from the MM, or quote rules to the DM when the DM is deliberatly "rule-0-ing" them... but... I mean, really, why all the dislike for players owning a DMG? I ask my players not to read a module I'm planning on using in some form, granted, but the DMG or MM? Heck, if they wanna read them, why should I stick my nose in, or even really care?

And how would you deal with a DM who wanted to join your group if you're like that? "Sorry, you know The Big Secrets (TM), you can't play here!". Or what about a player who wanted to DM? Or a person in two groups?

First, I agree with you. DON'T read the module if I'm going to run it. (QUALIFIER: If it's an old module, or if you want it for your collection, go for it. Just don't buy it and read it because you know I'm going to use it.)

Second, I've never gone for the "don't buy the DMG, don't buy the MM". I don't say it, and I don't put up with it. I'm a big boy and it's my money. If I want to buy the book and completely memorize the damn thing, that's my call.

However, I do expect players to absolutely respect that player knowledge is NOT character knowledge and that the DM absolutely reserves the right to change monster or magic item descriptions to suit campaigns as they see fit. As a DM, if it's relevant to your character, I'll clue you in (a dragon slayer character would know, within reason, of changes to the fundamental nature of dragons, and an item creating wizard would learn of changes to an item as appropriate).

As to your question, I don't have an answer. I think it's difficult at best to try and swing the logistics of DM only stuff. Every group I have gamed with has had multiple players who were also DMs at one time or another. Heck, in some of my groups we would switch between campaigns in a rotating cycle at the conclusion of each adventure.

Patrick Y.

 

[Chimera]

Anyone who asks why the MM is a core book should ask him or herself why the DMG is a core book. I don't get the thinking that questions this.

As ARP said, I'm an Adult. No One is going to tell me what game materials that I am or am not allowed to purchase with my money and read on my time.

I don't make a habit of buying modules in the first place, but I would most certainly NOT buy a module I'm being put through as a player. I would consider that cheating. If a GM wants to run a module I own, then I would give him/her fair warning that I own it, and a fair evaluation of what I remember of it. Then I'd put it away until after we were done running through it. I'd also expect the GM to feel free to be as faithful or imaginitive with the module as s/he saw fit.

As a GM, I'd probably be pretty upset with a player who bought or brushed up on a module I was running them through. They wouldn't be invited back to my game table. (Although that is purely hypothetical, since I've NEVER run a store bought module in over 25 years of play. Strange, that.)

 

[alsih2o]

i think a lot of this comes from folks who have played with people who cannot seprate player knowledge from character knowledge. i myself have been sickened by players who holler out in mid-melee "monster x can't do that, he only has x attacks and x hitpoints"

now, that being said, i think trying to restrict players is a poor choice of how to deal with this situ.

a good player will let his character run free from his own knowledge, sometimes even glorying in the stupidity of his p.c.

it is an anti-munchkin manuever, or a powerplay by the d.m....if these phrases are bantied about, i,personally, would just change groups or the locks

 

[LostSoul]

i think a lot of this comes from folks who have played with people who cannot seprate player knowledge from character knowledge. i myself have been sickened by players who holler out in mid-melee "monster x can't do that, he only has x attacks and x hitpoints"

Or players who have their characters pull out fire and acid the first time they see a troll.

The reason I think the Monster Manual isn't a "core book" is because it doesn't have any rules in it. It's basically a bunch of characters. It's really handy, though.

 

[Darraketh]

Re: Re: Question, RE: DM's wanting players "in the dark"

...DON'T read the module if I'm going to run it. (QUALIFIER: If it's an old module, or if you want it for your collection, go for it. Just don't buy it and read it because you know I'm going to use it.)

Second, I've never gone for the "don't buy the DMG, don't buy the MM". I don't say it, and I don't put up with it. I'm a big boy and it's my money. If I want to buy the book and completely memorize the damn thing, that's my call.

However, I do expect players to absolutely respect that player knowledge is NOT character knowledge and that the DM absolutely reserves the right to change monster or magic item descriptions to suit campaigns as they see fit. As a DM, if it's relevant to your character, I'll clue you in (a dragon slayer character would know, within reason, of changes to the fundamental nature of dragons, and an item creating wizard would learn of changes to an item as appropriate)...

That about sums it up for me.

 

[Darraketh]

...The reason I think the Monster Manual isn't a "core book" is because it doesn't have any rules in it. It's basically a bunch of characters. It's really handy, though.

I have to say it's all rules. Each monster entry is a set of rules pertaining to said monster.

Fortunately for this game none of the rules are engraved in stone.

 

[Harlock]

This line of thinking has always left me questionnig one particular issue. Adventurers are a cut above the rest. They usually have above average abilities of which 2 can be wisdom and intelligence (since we are talking MM and D&D here). If someone's profession was "adventurer" wouldn't you expect them to have some knowledge of the perils of adventuring? For instance what critters may be out there trying to kill them? I'm not saying characters should know every detail abuot every monster, but I should think even common folk may have heard tales that a troll can only be killed by fire or acid. Doesn't the common person in our world know that a werewolf can only be killed by a silver bullet? Vampires are susceptable to a stake through the heart, crosses and garlic?

Now certainly more obscure monsters or extra-planar beings may be a different matter for common folk, but to an adventurer, with a high intelligence who is assumed to have done some research or at least paid attention to tales of other adventurers, or especially a person with knowledge the planes, shouldn't they have a chance to know about a critter? Maybe set a DC as to how common the critter is or have a bard make a bardic knowledge check. Anyway, I have always felt that DMs who expect their PCs to be ignorant of every detail of every monster was only deluding himself. YMMV.

 

[Zappo]

i think a lot of this comes from folks who have played with people who cannot seprate player knowledge from character knowledge. i myself have been sickened by players who holler out in mid-melee "monster x can't do that, he only has x attacks and x hitpoints"

In those cases, I usually smile mysteriously and state "Yes, you find it very strange, yet it is happening. Also, you notice that...", followed by some random blurb about the monster (like, "it has a much greener skin than all the green skinned goblins you've killed so far"). It always works. They often drop it there and then, but if they keep trying to figure out why the 1 HD skeleton had 14 HP, I can always think up something later.

 

[Number47]

Now, I would never rule out a player buying what they feel like. However, I would recommend to a newbie player to not buy the DMG or MM, simply because it would make the game harder for them. What I mean is, things like monsters and magic items are so different than core rules for my game that having any knowledge of those books is actually a detriment. I have one player that is a long time D&D player and I have to constantly remind him, "sure that may be what's in the book, but it may or may not be true for my game". He isn't trying to metagame, but he just can't help himself of thinking of, say, goblins as stupid cave-dwelling weenies. I have to inform him they aren't.