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

[The Grumpy Celt]

I played in a 2E campeign run by a DM who more or less did just this. He told us not to bring the DMG or the MM to the games. He also told us not to buy certian expansions, like "The Savage North," "Waterdeep," any of the "Volo's Guides," the "Complete Psionics Book" (even though he did not use psionics in his game) and certian novels.

The only reason a DM would have to do this is to exert control over the players (as compared to exerting control over the characters).

 

[LightPhoenix]

The only reason a DM would have to do this is to exert control over the players (as compared to exerting control over the characters).

Which as unfortunate as it is, may be the sole reason that person demands such things, or is even a DM. Some people just like to boss other people around and feel like they're special...

 

[S'mon]

As a DM I'd be pretty annoyed with players who expected to be able to refer to the DMG or MM while the game was running. Fortunately I have good players - one is a relative newbie who genuinely didn't know that trolls can only be killed by fire/acid, another veteran player with a Monk PC didn't disabuse him and let his sorcerer keep magic-missiling the troll and wondering why it kept getting up again...
If players are also DMs (like me) of course they may well have read the DMG or MM, but they should NEVER be allowed to read the MM during play. I can see that a few bits of the DMG might be ok - item creation rules for Wizard PCs with appropriate feats, say. Generally speaking, the less players know, the more fun it is for them, assuming the GM doesn't make killer dungeons only survivable with metagame knowledge.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think most of the posters so far have missed one important point.

But, before I get to that, I will say that I have always trusted the vast bulk of my players to seperate player/character knowledge. If your players can't do that, your problems will not be solved by banning certain books.

However, when starting my 3e campaign, I found myself in the rare situation where no-one in the group had any previous experience with 3e. There are in fact, only a few with a reasonable knowedge of previous incarnations of d&d.

I chose to use this as a tool to help increase everyone's enjoyment, and I have kept pretty much everything not PHB away from them.

An example of the result that I have been able to achieve through this method is that when a player is striving for a PrC, he knows only the pre-reqs, and an in-character idea of what that PrC is about. When the PC gains that PrC, he will have the added enjoyment of suddenly discovering a whole new range of abilities open up before him. A sense of "wow" that is a lot harder to achieve with veteran players.

I am sure that my players could roleplay their characters not knowing exactly what their PrC will entail, if that is the case in-game. But there is no way to roleplay the players sense of enjoyment when his hard work pays off, his character hits a goal, and the player himself is rewarded with sudden new scope.

Another reason to keep in-character knowledge from players is because, quite simply, it is not always possible to seperate the two.

Example: Bob the player knows that Gibber Beasts love to sunder magic items. His character Durgash knows only that Gibber Beasts have a fearsome and nasty reputation, and that he loves his holy +3 longsword of doome.

When given the option of engaging or not engaging the Gibber Beast, Bob's first instinct is to withdraw. Then, being a good roleplayer, he realises that he is afraid that Durgash will lose his beloved weaponm, and he can't let that infulence his decision. So he thinks he'd better charge in, as his character often does. But then, he thinks, wait a minute, that grizzled adventurer we just met told us to stay away from the Gibber Beast at all costs....

And on it goes. Bob does not necessarily know what decision he would have made without this extra bit of info floating in the back of his head. A bad roleplayer will use player-knowledge in situations where he shouldn't. A good roleplayer may be tempted to overcompensate for player knowedge, to avoid any sense that he is cheating.

Why force that predicament on a player, if you can help it?

So, in summary, I see two positives for restricting player information:

1. It adds to the sense of wonder and enjoyment the the player has the opportunity to experience.

2. It removes from players the responsibility to try and factor in sub-conscious motivation when they make in-character decisions. Just because a player is good at seperating character/player knowledge doesn't mean that the DM shouldn't make it even easier if he can.

That said, there is nothing wrong with making everything available. I'm about to run a short campaign with a different group, and I'm not hiding anything except the plot specifics, because I have at least one player who I know would love to just pour over all my new 3e stuff, and who will get more enjoyment from reading through the magic item descriptions in the DMG than he will finding out about it in character.

Neither method is inherrently right or wrong. Just, be aware, there can be good reasons for keeping info from players that don't have anything to do with trust issues or DM power-trips.

 

[Moe Ronalds]

My players can buy what they want and I won't stop them. We're all kids so my Co-DM, my Munchkin Pal (who hasn't read the 3rd edition rulebook since he used to play 2e and I, are the only ones with ANY books because no one else wants to waste the money on them. All I ask, is that no one other than my Co-DM and I even try to borrow anything aside from the PHB, and that in the middle of the game, do not for the love of pie quote the ed book and spoil it for everyone else! Yeesh! *takes riddilin* I'm okay now....

 

[Lazybones]

If you can stifle the urge to let out metagame knowledge, the game can be enhanced. I'm a player in a "bad guys" campaign (we're all humaniods), and I have a lot more knowledge of the game than some of the other players. I was a goblin rogue traveling in the company of two hulking bugbear fighters (both rel. new players) the other night, and the DM rolled up a random encounter for us. We ended up spotting a pair of cows in an adjacent field. The bugbears, feeling hungry, decided to kill one of them for food. As we neared, the DM reported that they looked strange--greenish in color, and apparently armored.

The newest player wasn't fazed; he decided to lasso this "strange cow."

A little later, we had to leave the statue of the bugbear in the field behind us, but it was a great combat and he very nearly managed to wrestle that gorgon into submission (when the lasso didn't work, he tried to grab it around the neck and drag it down). I played my metagame knowledge subtly, warning about how, "Guys, this doesn't look right..." and so on.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I think most of the posters so far have missed one important point.

But, before I get to that, I will say that I have always trusted the vast bulk of my players to seperate player/character knowledge. If your players can't do that, your problems will not be solved by banning certain books.

In my experience DM's who do not want players to have those books - be it a DMG or MM or "Volo's Guide to the Middle of Nowhere" - is because they want to be able to change the rules at whim.

They want to change the rules to screw the players through their characters.

They want to give gibbering mouthers 80% magic resistance just to screw the player running the mage. They want to make the ocs at 8 HD creatures to screw the player running the fighter. They want the NPC rulers of the city - who in a book might be listed as "good" - to take away all of a parties aquired goods, gold, weapons and treasure so they just have the ruler do so even through this is flagrantly out-of-character.

If they players question this then they are "rules lawyers" or "playing with out-of-game knowledge" - both of which are "wrong."

However, nothing is to be said of a DM abusing their authority.

There is only one thing a player can do in a game where the DM tells them not to buy such-and-such book, or a game where the DM punishes the players for protesting unanncouned rule changes, or a DM who personaly lies to the players about a game (and this is all part and parcel of the same thing).

That one thing is to tell the DM what he/she did wrong and to leave the game.

When you get right down to it, that is the only power players have - to tell the DM what they did wrong and to leave the game.

So, if a DM is forbidding players from buying or reading the MM or DMG, tell them they have no right to give such an order and leave the game.

It is the only power a player has.

 

[Tsyr]

Uh, sorry Celt, but even though I like the idea, you're the one in the wrong with that stance, as I see it.

It is perfectly within the DMs right to change a creature if he wants to, or to change NPCs in a published module. That's what Rule 0 is. And the players should accept Rule 0... it's the only rule that counts. It's not cheating, or lieing, or anything of the sort. It is part and parcel of sitting behind that carboard sceen. If a DM is forbidden to do that, you might as well not have a DM, and just walk through pre-printed modules as a bunch of players.

Now when DMs do it for the sole intent of screwing with players, that's a little different story... But that is also another thread all together, not part of this discussion, really.

 

[toberane]

Uh, sorry Celt, but even though I like the idea, you're the one in the wrong with that stance, as I see it.

It is perfectly within the DMs right to change a creature if he wants to, or to change NPCs in a published module. That's what Rule 0 is. And the players should accept Rule 0... it's the only rule that counts. It's not cheating, or lieing, or anything of the sort. It is part and parcel of sitting behind that carboard sceen. If a DM is forbidden to do that, you might as well not have a DM, and just walk through pre-printed modules as a bunch of players.

This is true. In our group, no one genereally will say anythiung about you playing with ANY of the books open. Most of us DM ourselves, and if the current DM is trying to look up a ruling in his DMG, there are usually three or four players trying to look up the same ruling in our own DMGs. Why? Not to get the best advantage out of it, but simply to speed up the "flipping through rulebooks" section of the game.

No one generally flips through the Monster Manual during a game session, more because it would be considered "impolite" than because we have a rule against it. Heck I usually play with the DMG open in front of me sitting on top of my open PHB. But if there are any rules that the DM needs to change, that's great. Typically, for intelligent monsters, the DM will add a class level (or several) to the monsters, giving them more skills, feats, and abilities, so that even if we know what this particular type of demon does, we don't know what magic items it has on and what classes it has taken some levels in. In cases like this, the DM has customized the monsters, so our knowledge from the MM gives us a vague overview of the monster type, and nothing more.

As far as being able to keep information from the players in order to preserve their sense of amazement, I think a good DM can do that even if the players know all the material in the rulebooks. That's where the DM's creativity and inspiration come in. The characters go in search of mysteries and secrets, and every one of them that the players uncover will offer the same sense of excitement that was being discussed earlier when the players gained Prestige Classes.

Now, here's another issue to be broached in the player knowledge vs. character knowledge debate: maturity. All of the players in our game range from about 30 to about 45 years old, and most of us have been gaming for 2 decades or more. We are perfectly capable of saying "I know that that thing is going to probably destroy my favorite sword, but he's standing on top of the unconscious Princess Cilia, so My character would attack!" We can be attacked by demons that have characteristics not listed in the MM without shouting "Hey! Demons aren't supposed to be like that!" We can accept the responsibility of trying an obscure action that the DM doesn't know the rule for, and then honestly look up the description when he asks with no embellishment.

My point is, we are mature enough to realize that without the guidelines provided by the rules and the ingenuity of the DM, D&D might as well be monopoly. DMs who restrict access to certain books often do so to avoid cheating. And if the players are too immature to realize that cheating makes the game less enjoyable for everyone (themselves included), then perhaps the players need these kind of restrictions. If they are going to point their fingers at the DM everytime he makes a rules call that differs from the books (as is his right), maybe they shouldn't be allowed to look at those books. Or maybe they should find another group, or maybe they should just go home and play a computer game.

EDIT: Note that age does not necessarily equal maturity. I gamed with people my age or older that were as bad as 11 year olds when it comes to power gaming, metagaming, etc. and I've gamed with 14 year olds who were very good role-players and could cery honestly separate player knowledge from character knowledge.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Uh, sorry Celt, but even though I like the idea, you're the one in the wrong with that stance, as I see it.

First, call me Grumpy.

DMs’ want to be able to do anything they can at any time they want to the players through their characters. Being able to call them on the rules is in the best interests of the players. It is not in the best interest of the players to spend a lot of time and energy on a game onto have to lay prone – so to speak – and take whatever abuse the DM feels like vomiting up.

In a previous campaign – the last 2E campaign in which I participated – we ran multiple characters and all the characters knew each other "in-game." One player, "John," ran an elf with the undead slayer kit.

In one adventure into Undermountain the party encountered a vampire. The next time we were to go into Undermountain, "John" wanted to run his undead slayer in case we again encountered the vampire. This seemed to be a real possibility as several of the characters were the same ones as before and we were going to the same region of Undermountain.

The DM told us specifically – out of game – that he would *not* be using the vampire.

So "John" left behind the undead slayer and played his gnome, as per the DMs request.

The DM did – in fact – use the vampire and had it kill "John's" gnome.

If that is not lying, what is? So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."

This same DM berated another player, "Steve," for having bought the "I, Tyrant" book. The DM had been planning to use beholders in his game. He only berated "Steve" after the fact. He did it so much "Steve" give the book away.

So, the DM was determining which books players could and could not own. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."

This same DM completely changed the way skill rules worked. This essentially set all the players characters back four or five levels in terms of skills but advanced certain NPC's in terms of skills. The DM did so without speaking to us, the players, nor did he inform us until a situation where in it came up in game. At this time the characters failed. When "John" protested, the DM penalized his characters 2,500 XP.

He was changing the rules at his whim. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."

This same DM changed orcs to something like a 5 HD creatures – in the middle of a combat that was going well for the player characters – to make them more challenging.

He was changing the rules at his whim. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."

He changed the alignment of a player character without consulting the player of the character.

He was changing the rules at his whim. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."

This behavior is all part-and-parcel of the same behavior.

You cannot have it both ways.

Either one endorses "Rule 0" and this behavior or one does not endorse this behavior and "Rule 0." DM – protective of their power – always hate it when a player questions anything they do for any reason.

Protests otherwise are like a paper bell – they ring hollow.

One endorses complete DM power and unaccountability and that DMs’ are not to be hampered by players calling them on rule violations for any reason ever. Or one does not endorse this and suggests that players can question a DM without being penalized. It cannot go both ways anymore than a person can walk in opposite directions at the same time.

Their is only one thing a player can do when a DM changes a rule to suit themselves, lies, alter player characters, demands players do not buy books or some similar action.

That is to tell the DM what they did wrong and leave the game.