The Migration of Information Across the Screen

[Man in the Funny Hat]

To that end, what's the real point of having the secret meta-data?

The point is that WHILE it is secret, it's fun to endeavor to uncover it and understand it. Just because someone knows it's their birthday doesn't mean you DON'T shut out the lights and hide before they walk into the surprise party.

 

[Ariosto]

The original D&D set had three books -- but all in the same box!

If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS and DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein. If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you play. A quick check of some rule or table may bring hidden treasure or save your game "life".

Two years and a third supplement later:

But somewhere along the line, D & D lost some of its flavor, and began to become predictable. This came about as a result of the proliferation of rule sets; while this was great for us as a company, it was tough on the DM. When all the players had all the rules in front of them, it became next to impossible to beguile them into danger or mischief.

 

[Reynard]

The original D&D set had three books -- but all in the same box!
Two years and a third supplement later:

Huh...

Nice little catches there. I'm not sure what to make of it. I started with BECM and AD&D, so oftentimes I am a little confounded by OD&D references like this, that seem so different than what I experienced as "old school".

I need to get my hands on OD&D and run it for a bit, I think.

 

[Janx]

The point is that WHILE it is secret, it's fun to endeavor to uncover it and understand it. Just because someone knows it's their birthday doesn't mean you DON'T shut out the lights and hide before they walk into the surprise party.

Well, I think the real problem is that for many GMs, the magic items in the DMG and the monster stats in the MM transform from meta data to instance data the moment they get put in the adventure. Kept the exact same, if the players read the meta data, they know more instance data.

The solution is obvious, GMs need to make up new monsters and items from scratch. But that's more work, and defeats the purpose of buying books filled with monster stats and magic items.
Hence the trade-off and risk.

Ignoring the issue of players knowing monster stats and magic item descriptions, is there any other stuff in the DMG and MM that hurts the game if the players know?

If the players know the rules on building NPCs and Monsters, they can try to nit-pick on whether the custom NPC or monster is built to spec, but technically, they should never see the stats to prove anything, and thus have no case.

The biggest problem I see is rules lawyering, particularly in questioning everything the GM builds or rules on, just because from what the player sees, it looks like it breaks a rule or guideline.

I would argue, that this is solveable with a rule that says "the rules are tools for the GM to build an adventure that is fit for the PCs, and is not subject to scrutiny by the players". Until there's a point buying system for the GM in building the world, adventures and encounters, that has to add up and can be audited by somebody, the GM is effectively making it up as he goes along, and the rules are simply tools he uses to add a layer of authority.

 

[Ariosto]

Ditto Janx -- but that seems to go against trends in D&D.

The game has been increasingly defined in the minds of participants by the finite contents of game books. It blows my mind to see that Mike Mearls considers a change to "Eladrin" (whatever those were in 2E/3E) more significant than the total revision of the game rules.

In that light, 4E may be an improvement in the area of monsters. If folks need to be bound by rigid rules, then give them rigid rules that are (yes, it's a paradox or something) flexible.