Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="T. Foster" data-source="post: 3908385" data-attributes="member: 16574">While I was the DM about 90% of the time in our old AD&amp;D group, several of the other players also owned the DMG and had at least passing familiarity with its contents. The dire warnings in the DMG intro about players prying into it being &quot;worthy of less than honorable death&quot; and so on, were at least 50% tongue in cheek and it was obviously understood that in at least a significant minority of groups more than one player would be familiar with the contents of the DMG.Nonetheless, though, the game absolutely does encourage a split between &quot;player info&quot; and &quot;DM info,&quot; and it's understood that even when players know what's in the DMG they're still expected to abide by an implicit &quot;code of honor&quot; that says they'll play dumb and respect the authority of the DM (after all, if they've read the DMG they've read all the stuff about DMing being a special fraternity, the contents of the book being the exclusive purview of the DM, etc.). I absolutely never in all my years playing 1E saw a player allowed to (or even try to) refer to the DMG during a session, and it was considered poor form to study the DMG between sessions if you weren't actively DMing a game. The idea of a player quoting the DMG in an argument with the DM was completely unheard of -- the rules in the PH were considered &quot;fixed&quot; and inviolate (unless the DM had announced house rule changes in advance), but how (or whether) the DM used the rules in the DMG was entirely at his discretion and he was under no obligation to answer to the players for anything (at least during the session -- players could of course discuss things after the game with the DM, and DMs who did a bad job weren't often called on to resume the seat).That's how everyone I played with back in the 80s approached things, anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="T. Foster, post: 3908385, member: 16574"] While I was the DM about 90% of the time in our old AD&D group, several of the other players also owned the DMG and had at least passing familiarity with its contents. The dire warnings in the DMG intro about players prying into it being "worthy of less than honorable death" and so on, were at least 50% tongue in cheek and it was obviously understood that in at least a significant minority of groups more than one player would be familiar with the contents of the DMG. Nonetheless, though, the game absolutely does encourage a split between "player info" and "DM info," and it's understood that even when players know what's in the DMG they're still expected to abide by an implicit "code of honor" that says they'll play dumb and respect the authority of the DM (after all, if they've read the DMG they've read all the stuff about DMing being a special fraternity, the contents of the book being the exclusive purview of the DM, etc.). I absolutely never in all my years playing 1E saw a player allowed to (or even try to) refer to the DMG during a session, and it was considered poor form to study the DMG between sessions if you weren't actively DMing a game. The idea of a player quoting the DMG in an argument with the DM was completely unheard of -- the rules in the PH were considered "fixed" and inviolate (unless the DM had announced house rule changes in advance), but how (or whether) the DM used the rules in the DMG was entirely at his discretion and he was under no obligation to answer to the players for anything (at least during the session -- players could of course discuss things after the game with the DM, and DMs who did a bad job weren't often called on to resume the seat). That's how everyone I played with back in the 80s approached things, anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification