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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6686230" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Thank you; I'd hoped someone would post the text. You're right that it is less explicit about "DM'S EYES ONLY" than I was led to believe, but it doesn't actually exclude the kind of behavior I spoke of. In fact:1) It technically advocates punishment purely for ownership of the book--which, presumably, Gary intended every DM to own it.2) It continues (or starts, I guess, since this is the preface!) the 'passive-aggressive punishment' routine, rather than advocating a frank conversation between adults.Now, I'm sure if someone had actually asked Gary in person, he could have been much more clear that mere ownership is not a fault and that someone who chooses to play after previously having chosen to DM is not at fault...but that isn't the point, is it? The book explicitly advocates being a dick to people...for owning the DMG. The strong implication is "people who own the DMG and use it to make trouble at your table," but the whole second paragraph you quoted specifically suggests discouraging "possession," not disruptive behavior. The penultimate sentence advocates a "heavy" punishment simply for reading, not for being a disruptive player (e.g. "cheating" or the like), and the ultimate sentence is the only place where we even get an implication of disruptive behavior. And I, for one, think it's essentially impossible for someone to read the DMG (particularly one as arcane as AD&D's!) thoroughly enough to be a good DM, and then completely scrub it all away so that they never act (even subconsciously) on that information--yet that passage, as stated, clearly recommends that the appropriate course of action at that point is to punish the player, because they unthinkingly/unknowingly used information "which could only be garnered by consulting these pages."Still, the bigger point is conceded: it's not as strident as I thought, and there is...at least an implication of doing it in response to something disruptive (even if the actual issue--getting an unfair advantage over other adventurers--is never expressly mentioned). At risk of moving the goalposts, I guess my next point would be: "Okay, it's not as bad as I thought, but it's still pretty bad." And it could still lead to DMs feeling like they aren't allowed to sit on the far side of the screen anymore, because they had to know all the stuff in the book--how can they forget it all now?</blockquote>

Verification