The Migration of Information Across the Screen

[Storminator]

Were players really denied the rules by moving them to the DMG? I know every one of the players in my 1e days owned or read the MM and the DMG regularly. We had the rule that you couldn't open the MM at the table, but we all knew all the rules.

It was just inconvenient an disorganized.

PS

 

[Jack7]

Were players really denied the rules by moving them to the DMG? I know every one of the players in my 1e days owned or read the MM and the DMG regularly. We had the rule that you couldn't open the MM at the table, but we all knew all the rules.

In our early days of play Storm I was the only one who owned any of the books (it was a long time ago). I gave my players the Player's Handbook to allow them to read and to create characters.

Later on they bought their own PHs, DMGs, and MMs, so that they could start DMing for themselves.

At that point I started doing something I've done ever since. They never encountered a monster or a magic item or anything of real importance that was exactly like it occurred in the books. And I think that is the solution to this game dilemma. Or one of the important ones. (Of course I'm not discussing rules so much as information exchange.)

Yes, a Paladin might get a Holy Avenger, but the Holy Avenger in the DMG was never the Holy Avenger they got. The Holy avenger in the DMG was a basic design Template to me, what they got instead was a Holy Avenger specifically geared towards the setting, the character who was to receive it, and which had some of the same basic functions as the "standardized Holy Avenger" in the books, but with entirely different functions and abilities as well. And they did not automatically know how to use the various functions the sword had merely because they possessed it. They had to figure it out, to decipher what the item could do by experimentation as they went along, to figure what the exact abilities were and how to employ them.

The same for monsters. Encountering a Troll was something vaguely like the Monster Manual Troll, but the Troll in my world was also different from the "standardized Troll." They could never be sure what they would get exactly, and many monsters were entirely unique. Monsters, like NPCs, which I also kept tight informational control over, also rarely fought to the death unless trapped or cornered, and so they were not automatically disposable and expendable, given them potential long term lethality. Then again the corpses of many monsters, as with many mythic monsters, were often very, very valuable. Bodily fluids and scales and eyes and other things could be used to create things or enchant things. In this way monsters were both a real and ongoing danger to the world at large and often a valuable commodity to the player, both dead and alive (some monsters were only useful if alive, such as a monster that produced a certain type of venom that could be used as a medicine against disease, or to produce a counteractive agnate to being mortified by another monster - i.e. the bacteria that can kill the virus). Monsters were sometimes also benign or even helpful, especially compared to reputations, and so the players had to figure out if a monster was really what it appeared or was reputed to be. Magic was often as likewise unpredictable, complicated, and dangerous as monsters.

Yes, this meant more prep work, but over time you develop procedures and tricks and systems for making those kinds of things easy to modify and set-up. In any case by making the different interactive elements of the world (magic items, relics, artifacts, NPCs, monsters, and magic, etc.) unpredictable and non-standardized, different than being merely "by the book," I've been told numerous times over the years that my setting is far more interesting and dangerous and unpredictable and fun than having monsters and magic and items that are well-known and easily predictable. (I've also found that when it comes to NPCs, monsters, magic, and magic items, don't let those things become predictable in behavior any more than they should be predictable in function.)

And I think that is the point. In order to truly surprise and challenge your players you can't operate "by the book," especially nowadays when information is so easy to gain and disseminate. The one thing the DM can keep truly secret is his world, how it operates, who and what populates it, how magic works, what the true motivations of the NPCs are, and so forth.

If you're going to operate by the book, and everyone has access to the same information, then you cannot possibly expect to surprise or even challenge your players (short of the idea of "un or im-balance") because everything in that world or setting is already known. There is nothing to migrate across the screen because there is, in practical effect, no screen at all, there is no information selectivity, there is no information discrimination, there is no information security, and therefore there are no secrets and no surprises. The only real thing that separates the DM from the player as far as knowledge and information base is chair position. And that distinction is merely decorative.

That's all very modern and democratic. There is however nothing at all similar to anything resembling "fantasy" in the idea, nothing fantastic in the way that works, and unless the players "role-play" merely with the singular intention to "win every fight" then I can't imagine that information equality means anything but eventual boredom for the players, and the DM.

If your world is uninteresting and unengaging, not unique, and is already well explored (that is to say, if all of the information about it has already spilled like disemboweled guts "from the books,") then no wonder the game needs a new edition every few years. The new edition, the new rules and ways of doing things stand in as a substitute for the feeling of wonder and of the unknown that is supposed to be a necessary component of most any fantasy world.

But when you set up a game and a fantasy world in which it is possible to know everything merely by reading the books, then what is the real point of exploration and adventure? You already know exactly what you will encounter. The only real question then is not what will I possibly encounter in this world, but when will I encounter what I already know is coming? And that isn't fantasy at all, that isn't a Golden Thread or a Yellow Brick Road towards danger, excitement, and the unknown, it's just a well-trodden paper trail to a relatively safe place you've already visited numerous times before.

 

[Mallus]

The idea of players becoming DM co-processors is fine, *except* that it really cannot happen without a serious loss of mystery...

Only if 1) the campaign's mysteries all stem from the rules and 2) the DM doesn't add anything new.

Besides, a loss of mystery can be a desired outcome. Consider a rule-opaque game where the PC's learn about the setting and its dangers solely through play. As the encounter/overcome/lose to more and more challenges, they'll know more, opponents will perforce be less mysterious, they might even develop standard operating procedures for dealing with them.

This is a good thing. It's learning the campaign. But, in a way, it's also the means the loss of mystery. Sometimes the 'fantasy' and 'game' parts of D&D are at odds...

 

[Storminator]

Later on they bought their own PHs, DMGs, and MMs, so that they could start DMing for themselves.

At that point I started doing something I've done ever since. They never encountered a monster or a magic item or anything of real importance that was exactly like it occurred in the books.

SNIP

And I think that is the point. In order to truly surprise and challenge your players you can't operate "by the book," especially nowadays when information is so easy to gain and disseminate. The one thing the DM can keep truly secret is his world, how it operates, who and what populates it, how magic works, what the true motivations of the NPCs are, and so forth.

This is kind of my point. Your players weren't denied the information because it was in a separate book. They were denied the information because you made it up yourself.

Incidentally, it seems like you changed all the parameters (AC, hp, Thac0, special abilities, etc i.e everything in a MM entry). Did you change the rules? I.e. did you have house rules your players weren't aware of?

PS

 

[Jack7]

Incidentally, it seems like you changed all the parameters (AC, hp, Thac0, special abilities, etc i.e everything in a MM entry). Did you change the rules? I.e. did you have house rules your players weren't aware of?

I did change some of the MM listings, but mainly I changed the way monsters operated, behaved, and what they could do. Same for magic items and some spells, especially higher level ones.

I didn't change the rules per se though, I've never considered "rule-secret-keeping" necessary or very beneficial. For instance everyone knows about gravity, it would be familiar to everyone, so everyone would know how dangerous it was to fall down a sixty foot hole.

I did have some secret house rules but these things covered the way monsters, magic, and magic items and those kinds of things operated. Because the players wouldn't know about these things until they encountered them.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Lastly, yes it's true in any edition that the DM can make up his own monsters, but that's one of the great fallacies. The DM shouldn't HAVE to make up his own monsters due to the players being GIVEN complete access to monster data.

3e was the only edition where it was expected that players are given that knowledge. Not only were the rules such that monsters and players were pretty much built "the same", [which meant that even monsters created by the DM are still going to be known by the PCs to some extent, since they follow the same rules as the PCs, more or less], but actually required many PCs to have access to the monster manual for summoning, wild shaping, polymorphing, animal companions, etc, etc, etc ...

4e has reversed that trend, changing those powers to give PCs no reason to look at the monster manual. So, if they are given complete access to he monster data ... it's the same as if they had it in editions before 3e. I's hard to stop a player from getting that information, at best you can ban the book from the table for PCs.

EDIT:

IMHO, a PC that doesn't know it's own capabilities isn't mysterious as much as frustrating. Some mysteries created by lack of information aren't necessarily preventing players from metagaming, some of it involves the players not knowing things that their characters should know about the world that they live in.

 

[Odysseus]

One question to ask is "why"? Another is, "is this a good thing"? What benefits are gained by moving this information into the hands of the players? Similarly, what is lost? How does it affect play? What other kinds of information can be given over to the PCs? Will a later 4E book give the players monster stats (say, "The Summoner's Guidebook" or some such thing)? Is there even a supposition currently that the DMG and the MM are off limits to players?

With the 4E game I DM. I literally knocked down my DMs shield.
Two of my players , DM other groups. So trying to hide rule mechanics/information behind a shield is a bit pointless. Its upto the players to RP what their characters knows or doesn't know.

And to expediate game play. I don't even look at the players character sheets. I'll tell them a monster score 25 vs reflex, and they tell me whether its a hit or miss. Certainly with 3rd and 4th ed. I need the players to chip in with help running the mechanics. If I had to do it all , it would be a very slow game.

The only thing I don't reveal to the players is the adventure and what the monsters are(if the characters don't recognise them)
I understand the point that DM running all the mechanics , leaves the players to immerse themselves in the game. Thats not better or worse, thats just a different approach.

 

[Reynard]

While there probably isn't much benefit from making "to hit" rolls opaque (after all, having the player be able to say "I hit AC -1 (or 21)" does speed up play) I am not sure the same can be said for other mechanical situations. I like the old turning undead system for AD&D much better with the player merely saying they are attempting to turn and giving me the result of the die roll. Much the same for saving throws -- i'd rather tell the player that the monster does something scary and strange and say "make a saving throw" (without saying what kind) than tell the player to make a DC 15 Reflex Sve or whatever. But I also prefer flavor text over game speak, so in reality it isn't that opaque for long -- I am not going to lie to the players in the description to make them think something is not what it is (unless such would be appropriate for the siuation, obviously).

A related issue is DM making checks for PCs, which is essentially information having to be returned across the screen after having been handed to the players. Checks to resolve perception, "thief skills" and "secret" saves or skill checks are all relatively common and, i think, necessary aspects of play (I do tend to let the PCs roll, though, by having them roll a bunch of dice before play starts that will be my "secret die roll" list).

 

[Storminator]

I like the old turning undead system for AD&D much better with the player merely saying they are attempting to turn and giving me the result of the die roll. Much the same for saving throws -- i'd rather tell the player that the monster does something scary and strange and say "make a saving throw" (without saying what kind) than tell the player to make a DC 15 Reflex Sve or whatever.

Back in our 1e days, we would have figured out what your monster is and already know what kind of save it is, and we'd know what our PCs needed for the save. Same with turn undead. We had the rules for that written on every cleric character sheet. Sometimes we'd "solve for undead" by checking the roll vs the chart! "Hmmm, no, a wraith would be turned, so would a specter... ghost?"

But I also prefer flavor text over game speak, so in reality it isn't that opaque for long -- I am not going to lie to the players in the description to make them think something is not what it is (unless such would be appropriate for the situation, obviously).

This was our experience. Pretty soon, we know what it is.

A related issue is DM making checks for PCs, which is essentially information having to be returned across the screen after having been handed to the players. Checks to resolve perception, "thief skills" and "secret" saves or skill checks are all relatively common and, i think, necessary aspects of play (I do tend to let the PCs roll, though, by having them roll a bunch of dice before play starts that will be my "secret die roll" list).

In cases where a PC knows they are "triggering" a roll, I have them roll 3 dice. I pick which one counts before they roll, and tell them what happens. Obviously some cases you don't even want the PCs to know there's a roll involved, but I use those less and less as time goes by. "I think I failed a Spot check!" is a great moment at the table.

PS

 

[Janx]

It's obvious that information hiding was a trait of the older editions, and it seems to have shifted.

There were benefits to both methods, as well as disadvantages.

Some key problems I saw were:
-Player is limited by things they should know, but are hidden by design
-Overtime, player has experienced all the rules, regardless of PC level
-GM is forced to do all the work, work that the players could easily do
-GM abuse of hidden information, using it to thump players for doing something stupid, whereas if they knew the rules, they'd have avoided the mistake


From my perspective, I like having the players know and understand the rules for anything that speeds up game play, and isn't spoiling a game world secret. How combat works is not a secret. How many HP the monster has is.
If the players know the combat rules, they'll stop asking me stupid "can I do X?" questions. They can also do their own math. In 3e, I can keep the AC secret, and they can do all the math, and only I know if they actually hit. Good enough for me.

Every GM wishes the players would forget all the monster stats when they start a new campaign with level 1 PCs. Fact is, that's impossible. So once the players have seen an orc, they pretty much know how they work.

The only real solution to that, is to generate new monsters all the time. At the minimum, creating a new custom MM for each game world, and never starting new parties in the same world.

The only people who will get the wide-eyed wonder of a new world are new players. Most of us have been through at least one edition change. Not gonna happen for us. We know the game too well, even just as players.

Since we can't erase player memories, and creating all new material all the time can be work intensive, we should simply accept this state of affairs and use it to our advantage, rather than opine about it.