How would you react if the DM asked all the players to hand him their DMGs?

[nagora]

In my experience, the primary reason why players insist on bringing the DMG to the table is precisely to hold it over the head of the DM. Likewise, players commonly use the MM at the table to look up monster stats on the fly ("Look here! On page 172, it says the thing's vulnerable to..."). While there are legitimate reasons for having these at the table (magic items, PrCs, summoning), I feel that these are heavily outweighed by the disruptive and negative effects that I've listed.
This is my experience too, and it probably colours my attitude to the question.

[Akimbo]

Well, it has been stated that houseruling the contents of the DMG is as contentious as houseruling the PHB and that a DM who refuses to debate the issue of a houserule is treating the players as his toys. It's also been clearly stated that the rules in the DMG are needed by the players to understand their characters and that making changes to them invites chaos and is the sign of a whimsical and arbitrary DM.

Yes, houseruling the DMG is exactly as contentious as houseruling the PHB, which is to say, Not at all if you inform the players about the changes. And very much so if you do not tell them until after it affects something them.

Also, no a DM who refuses to debate a houserule right then is fine. A DM who refuses to tell a player that there is a houserule is treating them as a plaything.

Making changes to the DMG rules is fine, as long as the players are informed beforehand, and the world remains consistent.

[Thrawn183]

Nagora, I'll assume Johnny was a great swimmer. From the context, I'd feel pretty confident about trying to swim across as long as I was on the lookout for trees that might have been swept away or something.


This also applies to my point. Was Johnny a level 5 expert with skill focus in swim (I know you don't play 3.x so I'm not going to go the full length). What I'm trying to say is, I think a character should have a rough idea of their chance of success. I'm also trying to say that I feel the majority of DM's are incapable of communicating that chance of success without just throwing out a % chance, (is "you'll probably succeed" anything over 50%? or is it closer to 90?) so why not just tell them the DC at that point?

When I listen to your description, it sounds to me like successfully swimming across the water would be almost certain, if not actually certain unless a very unlucky roll on a random table decided otherwise.

Hamlet, I think I agree with you. Being intentionally disruptive is... unacceptable. I think the OP'er should take the problematic player aside and remind them of that. I also think the OP'er should inform players of when a rule has been changed. If a character is suddenly far less likely to be able to bust down a door with sheer strength, wouldn't they be more likely to prepare magical means for surpassing such an obstacle or maybe looking into buying a weapon of a material that is good at destroying objects (adamantine in this case)?

I think what a lot of people are arguing is:
1) Consistency in the rules, otherwise a player doesn't know what their character is capable of.
2) Rule changes being made ahead of time if possible such that players can make changes/rebuilds/second tries
and
3) Knowledge of the rules on the part of the DM.

Personal annecdote:
I had a DM that was using the 3.0 version of Darkness by mistake. I realized how much harder all the encounters seemed than they probably should have been (even the DM seemed surprised). Only then did I look it up and realize what was wrong.

Thing is, we were deprived a significant amount of experience that we should have earned because the enemies were far stronger than their CR's would have indicated. I feel that this is something that should be pointed out as quickly as possible. Then the DM can rectify the error or inform me that he's made some modifications and that he's accounted for it by changing the CR. I'd trust my DM to change the CR. I'd also expect my DM to make a mistake reading the stat block

[nagora]

Nagora, I'll assume Johnny was a great swimmer.
Ah, kids today!

Johnny was, and is, Tarzan for my and my parents' generations:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/ideas/bal-id.backstory17aug17,0,2051526.column

So, yes, you would be right to feel confident, and I think that feeling is a better target for player and DM than concrete numbers in such situations.

[valadil]

And how exactly would you know how much you needed to invest in the swimming skill to become an Olympic level swimmer, if you are denied access to the rules on swimming? You might think "Hey, I put as many points in it as is possible, I must be good!", but without an understanding of the rules on swimming you might be sadly mistaken.

If I didn't know the rules, I'd have the DM guiding me through character creation. I'd probably have a conversation like this...

Me: "So I want to be an olympic level swimmer. Do I just invest a bunch of points in this skill?"
DM: "Yes."
Me: "K, I'll put in as many as possible. Now I'm a perfect swimmer, right?"
DM: "You'll probably win any race, but there are circumstances where you could fail."
Me: "Huh?"
DM: "You couldn't swim up a waterfall. I wouldn't allow that even on a critical success. You might have trouble in stormy waters and even with your skill I wouldn't expect you to be able to swim in plate mail."

That gives me an idea of how skilled my character is. If I want a crunchier idea I'll ask for encumbrance values.

Regarding the things one may potentially look up in a DMG, those don't come up often enough in the games I've played in to warrant players having a DMG. I've seen wind once. PrCs are handcopied. I've seen one character use more than one type of poison. I feel like these are things that can be looked up as they happen. Magic item creation tends to take place during down time rather than in the middle of an adventure. Maybe wind matters more in a tactical game - I'm just going on my experience.

--

And to reiterate, I'm only advocating removing books from the table (and I'm just saying keeping them off the table, actually handing them over to the GM is too much) if the books are interfering with game. A player who looks up every rule a GM makes and calls the ones that are wrong is taking too much time away from game. He's also not participating in the story. Even if you can read rules while RPing, you can't do so at full capacity. I'd rather have players interacting directly with the game than having books between them.

My games prioritize story and roleplaying over rules and mechanics. Anyone who signs up for my games knows this ahead of time. They know that this means that I'd rather they interact with NPCs than sit back to read a book. They know that this means I'd rather play the game with flawed rules than spend my time digging through books for the right rule. Players who aren't interested in this sort of game generally pass when I invite them to play. And I generally pass when offered a more tactical game.

[AKA_Bait]

Which takes us back to the general case. It's all playstyle in the end, but in this specific case I see no reason why the players should object to being asked to leave their DMGs behind, in bags or whatever.


Doesn't it always come back to playstyle?

My point here, is that the reason the player may object is a playstyle one as well. If off the bat at the begininig of the campaign (or when a new player joins a group), the DM says "I'd like it to be a standing rule that no one uses the DMG or MM at the table" and discusses it with the players that shouldn't be a big issue. My very first 3.0 game was with a DM like that and I was ok with it.

The case of the OP is a different one. The game had been proceeding with the understanding that the players could bring those books to the table. That this is my preferred style as a DM is really beside the point. In the case where the DM is now asking the players to change the style they had been using, it is perfectly justifyable for a player to in turn ask why. The answer the DM gives can either cause trouble, or be reasonable, as per above.


Well, it has been stated that houseruling the contents of the DMG is as contentious as houseruling the PHB and that a DM who refuses to debate the issue of a houserule is treating the players as his toys.

Well, I would say that the contentiousness of any houserule regarding any book is entirely dependant upon the group. It's worth keeping in mind that people tend to be axiomatic on message boards, even when they don't really mean it.


It's also been clearly stated that the rules in the DMG are needed by the players to understand their characters and that making changes to them invites chaos and is the sign of a whimsical and arbitrary DM.

Again, this depends upon the group. If the DM does this to the point that the rules in the DMG are effectivley disregarded most of the time, and didn't inform his group ahead of time, I'd say they have a reasonable gripe.


If you agree that the player is being disruptive if they persist in this behaviour after the DM has discussed it, then the alternative heaves inevitably into view, does it not?

Well, no. There is a third alternative as well, which I at least view as the default alternative. That is: just putting up with it. Sometimes it behooves a DM to just look past whatever flaws and annoying behaviours a player might have. Frequently this is the case where either the player on the whole (flaws included) still brings more fun to the game than they take away or that there are other intrapersonal reasons (i.e. "I know he's sometimes a jerk, but he's still my best friend") not to cut a player even if they are doing disruptive things from time to time.


My argument (cannot speak for Nagora or Matthew or others) is that during play, the DMG should not be readily accessible to the players for the purposes of verifying that DM rulings are accurate according to the written text of that book simply because the "rules" of the DMG are not rules at all, but merely guidlines and, for all intents and purposes, there is nothing in the DMG that the players should have interest in anyways.

What I, and I think Matthew are saying, is that this depends upon the playstyle of the group. Some groups, only the PHB is thought to be default player material and 'the rules'. In others everything, including all splatbooks is thought to be player material at 'the rules'. In others still there are no books thought to be 'the rules'. It's not a universal.


I am merely saying this: that DURING PLAY, it is not appropriate for a player to hold the DMG over the head of the DM as written law to which the DM must adhere unless the players have been duly notified ahead of time.

except for extreme cases, which we would probably also agree on, I'm not sure what this argument is about then.


I feel it is also important to say this: good rules do not govern what actions the players can take, but govern how the actions of players are resolved. If you don't understand the difference, then it's apparant that this discussion is wasted.

Sure, but the rules as they bleed into the IC functioning of the world, do have an impact on PC knowledge and therefore IC decision making. I don't think anyone has really disputed this. The argument comes in as to degree of detail needed/wanted and if the PC should have the book to look it up themselves or need to ask the DM when at the table.


HOWEVER, if, on the other hand, you were, immediately upon failing after you assumed you made the standard DC, to challenge the DM, pull out the DMG and cry "unfair, cheater" and demand it be put "right," that is not the way to play the game and is what many are arguing against. It is also why many of us advocate removing the DMG from the players' hands during the session as it helps to remove this issue in many cases.

And what other ones of us are arguing, is that he behavior of crying foul and causing a stink is not causally linked to posession of the DMG. It's an experiential point that is player specific about if removing the DMG from the players hands at the table lessens this problem. I don't feel it does but that is based on my group and my players.



In my experience, the primary reason why players insist on bringing the DMG to the table is precisely to hold it over the head of the DM. Likewise, players commonly use the MM at the table to look up monster stats on the fly ("Look here! On page 172, it says the thing's vulnerable to..."). While there are legitimate reasons for having these at the table (magic items, PrCs, summoning), I feel that these are heavily outweighed by the disruptive and negative effects that I've listed.

Again, player specific. My players don't do this. Maybe because they all, except Jaxgaret, know I usually have a better command of the rules than they do. I don't know. However, when I generalize, I try to err on the side of giving the players the benifit of the doubt in terms of behavior rather than assuming they will misuse the books.

[hamlet]

Hamlet, I think I agree with you. Being intentionally disruptive is... unacceptable. I think the OP'er should take the problematic player aside and remind them of that. I also think the OP'er should inform players of when a rule has been changed. If a character is suddenly far less likely to be able to bust down a door with sheer strength, wouldn't they be more likely to prepare magical means for surpassing such an obstacle or maybe looking into buying a weapon of a material that is good at destroying objects (adamantine in this case)?

I'm not sure it's so much being "intentionally disruptive" as I'm willing to offer the benefit of the doubt that the person in question actually has overall good intentions. It's more the act of usurping the authority of the DM and bludgeoning them with the written rules as inescapable and inviolate.

It's not a matter of power or power dynamics, it's really a matter of practicality for me. The simple fact is that, during a session, the DM has final authority end of discussion. Past a simple and respectful question, the players need to bend to the DM's rulings in order to facilitate the progress of the game, else there's no point in playing.

After the session, things are up for grabs, of course, but in session there has to be a final arbitrator and I, for one, am not willing to let that be a book.



I think what a lot of people are arguing is:
1) Consistency in the rules, otherwise a player doesn't know what their character is capable of.
2) Rule changes being made ahead of time if possible such that players can make changes/rebuilds/second tries
and
3) Knowledge of the rules on the part of the DM.


Nobody is arguing against any of these points. In fact, I know that Matthew at least will join me in saying that consistancy of rulings (not neccessarily consistancy with the written rules) is the hallmark of anybody worthy of sitting on that side of the DM's screen.



Personal annecdote:
I had a DM that was using the 3.0 version of Darkness by mistake. I realized how much harder all the encounters seemed than they probably should have been (even the DM seemed surprised). Only then did I look it up and realize what was wrong.

Thing is, we were deprived a significant amount of experience that we should have earned because the enemies were far stronger than their CR's would have indicated. I feel that this is something that should be pointed out as quickly as possible. Then the DM can rectify the error or inform me that he's made some modifications and that he's accounted for it by changing the CR. I'd trust my DM to change the CR. I'd also expect my DM to make a mistake reading the stat block

There's one point that I will quibble on, and that is "we were deprived a significant amount of experience that we should have earned . . ."

In my view, the only thing that the players are entitled to is written out in the PHB (unless changed ahead of time with the agreement of all parties). Players are not entitled to certain quantities of treasure or XP and that is a major flaw with the WBL assumptions and the CR system being built into later editions. It hard codes a sense of entitlement into the system which, if altered, breaks the game.

But then again, the sense of entitlement is a modern idea, and I realize that I'm an old fogey here even though I'm not even 30 yet.

[nagora]

In my view, the only thing that the players are entitled to is written out in the PHB (unless changed ahead of time with the agreement of all parties). Players are not entitled to certain quantities of treasure or XP and that is a major flaw with the WBL assumptions and the CR system being built into later editions.
Oh, yes. Strongly agree. This was a bad design blunder.


But then again, the sense of entitlement is a modern idea, and I realize that I'm an old fogey here even though I'm not even 30 yet.
'fraid so. It's not so bad, really.

Hey! You kids! Get off my lawn!

[Tormsskull]

I don't see how, the thread is about taking the book away from the player. Not, should the player be a jerk.

But again, without the context. See, if we narrow down the scope of the argument, and have what we are talking about apply directly to the specific situation that caused this concern, we can talk in plain, uncomplicated terms.

The people who do not understand that we are talking about a specific situation, and choose to bring "but what ifs" or "In the case of" are actually diverting us from the scope of the issue.

Maybe this will help:

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p15/Tormsskull/Pictures%20to%20Share/DMG4P.jpg


In the Actual situation, the player, IMO, is being a douche. If you disagree, that's ok, its a preference.

The Irrelevant situation is what some people are arguing. They are ignoring the part where the player is (again, IMO) being a douche and grabbing his DMG to argue with the DM. If the DM makes a rule and the player says "Really? I thought it was", and the DM says "That's it, no more DMGs for you guys, hand them over." Then the DM is being both stupid and a douche.

In the Completely Irrelevant situation (which a surprising number of people seem to be coming from), there is no point to post in this thread. Start a new thread with the title of "Should player have access to the DMG during gametime". Because that is not what this thread is about.



I'm also trying to say that I feel the majority of DM's are incapable of communicating that chance of success without just throwing out a % chance, (is "you'll probably succeed" anything over 50%? or is it closer to 90?) so why not just tell them the DC at that point?


But I think the counter-argument is that DMs may feel your character is incapable of knowing the % chance of success, and that is specifically why they are not telling you in % terms.

Swimming across a calm river should be auto-success. If the water was raging, and your character was a skilled swimmer (At level 1 with 4 ranks in swimming I would say your character knows how to swim) it would be completely fine to say "Given my character's experience in swimming, would he know how difficult this water would be to cross?" Other people think it makes more sense for the DM to say "This water is raging, the DC to cross it is 25. If you roll below 10 you will get swept away by the current. If you roll a 1 you will get pulled under., etc."

Both ways are fine, but if the DM believes 1 way is right, and the player prefers the other way, there will probably be issues.

[Akimbo]

It's not a matter of power or power dynamics, it's really a matter of practicality for me. The simple fact is that, during a session, the DM has final authority end of discussion. Past a simple and respectful question, the players need to bend to the DM's rulings in order to facilitate the progress of the game, else there's no point in playing.

After the session, things are up for grabs, of course, but in session there has to be a final arbitrator and I, for one, am not willing to let that be a book.

This word, I do not think it means what you think it does. For there to be an arbiter, there needs to be arbitration. What you are demanding from your players is that no discussion ever take place on any issue whatsoever while at the table. This means you are not an arbiter.

[nagora]

What you are demanding from your players is that no discussion ever take place on any issue whatsoever while at the table.
No he's not.

[Matthew]

Nobody is arguing against any of these points. In fact, I know that Matthew at least will join me in saying that consistancy of rulings (not neccessarily consistancy with the written rules) is the hallmark of anybody worthy of sitting on that side of the DM's screen.

Actually... I have been thinking about that lately. I think it's necessary for the game world to be consistant with itself, and that usually means the game master should be consistant in his rulings, but there are exceptions (such as when a rule is changed mid campaign because the group as a whole is unhappy with it, such as introducing Polymorph errata). There is also something to be said for ad hoc rulings, but that is another thread, though... actually maybe I will start it.

[Thrawn183]

Ironically hamlet, I never keep track of my own experience. Its been a long time since I cared all that much about how quickly my character levels up. I do however think that the rules in the DMG are assumed to be enacted unless stated otherwise. This includes rules for determining treasure, experience and such. I trust my DM's to role on a treasure table correctly, so if we get a few bad loots in a row I don't throw a fit. I assume its fickle fortune.

At the same time, my group uses the listed CR's and assumes that parties are at expected WBL (unless specific changes have been made of course, and those are discussed ahead of time, we had a campaign testing out Arcana Evolved where we did 3x loot and experience to test the system at different levels of gameplay). Therefore, correcting the DM about a rule is useful in my games.

In addition, the DM asks on occaision to see what our total wealth is. If we get to low then the DM can have a dragon attack a town or something that lets the players pad their pockets a little.

It all gets back to trust. Trust in a player to try and get along with your setting. Trust in a DM to not try and make you fall for playing a paladin. Trust in your players to know the rules that their character would be reasonably expect to encounter. Trust in the DM to know all the rules that he could reasonably expect the PC's to encounter. And finally, trust in things to not go bat sh** insane because DM solved a philosophical quandry and started changing things left and right without telling anybody.

[Swordguy]

In the Actual situation, the player, IMO, is being a douche. If you disagree, that's ok, its a preference.

The Irrelevant situation is what some people are arguing. They are ignoring the part where the player is (again, IMO) being a douche and grabbing his DMG to argue with the DM. If the DM makes a rule and the player says "Really? I thought it was", and the DM says "That's it, no more DMGs for you guys, hand them over." Then the DM is being both stupid and a douche.

In the Completely Irrelevant situation (which a surprising number of people seem to be coming from), there is no point to post in this thread. Start a new thread with the title of "Should player have access to the DMG during gametime". Because that is not what this thread is about.


But how often does the "Actual Situation" have to come up before the DM is justified in enacting your "Completely Irrelevant Situation" as a preventative measure?

1 time? 5 times? In my case, in every single weekly session for 5 months?

If you just say "screw it" and ban the DMG from the table as a rule, the "Actual Situation" won't ever come up.

[Akimbo]

In the Completely Irrelevant situation (which a surprising number of people seem to be coming from), there is no point to post in this thread.

1) Threads are not so narrowly defined. If we were to make a second such thread, it would undoubtedly be merged with this one, since this thread discusses the same issue.

2) If that is not the issue at hand, and does not belong in this thread, then why did you specifically post your opinion about the answer to that question in this thread?

3) You are extrapolating a great deal from the original post. More then I feel comfortable doing. All the OP said was that he made rulings different from the DMG, and the players immediately flipped it open "to quote and argue with me."

He did not say that they did argue with him. There is quite the possibility that the player was only going to look it up to assure he was correct in his knowledge of the rules before asking the DM if he was sure. Or maybe he was using the established method of questioning rules changes, the 60 second rule.

To me this was bad DMing on the part of the DM, because the conversation in the worst possible case should have gone like this:

DM: Blah.
Player: Opens book, finds passage, says, "Are you sure? The rules for X state Y."
DM: I know, I'm using different rules, trust me.
Player: Okay.

To me there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in this thread at all that the DM ever used that one sentence that would have solved his problem.

[Tormsskull]

In addition, the DM asks on occaision to see what our total wealth is. If we get to low then the DM can have a dragon attack a town or something that lets the players pad their pockets a little.


Now this is what I call a total divergant playstyle. It really goes to show you how differently people play the game. If my group were to read this paragraph they would guffaw, as I just did.



But how often does the "Actual Situation" have to come up before the DM is justified in enacting your "Completely Irrelevant Situation" as a preventative measure?


Once, in my opinion. I've never had to ban a book at the table simply because my players are apparently very respectful. I've had situations where one person says "How does this work?" And I've said "Not sure, go ahead and look it up while the other PC walked into the store and is now RPing with the merchant).

[hamlet]

AKA_Bait: I'm not going to go point for point with you since I really am supposed to be working here. Or at least that's why my paycheck says. So I'll go over in a general post.

I agree that, in the end, this really boils down to a playstyle issue in global terms. It is, to quote Matthew, "a matter of preference" and in a way, there's no real basis for a discussion on that.

Reducing the argument to a local one (a table by table issue) however changes it a little.

In my experience, by being up front and asking that DMG's are kept out of player hands (as is entirely possible and reasonable in my preferred system if less so in 3.x), it sets the tone for the campaign immediately in many ways. It's not about hiding the rules, or maintaining power over players, or indulging in my own ego (which is considerable). It's more about intimating that what is in the DMG is, primarily, for the DM and not players, and that it is a guidline and suggest and not a concrete rule.

It also helps to set up the fact that, for practicality's sake, the DM's word is the law during a session in the best interests of the game. It helps to curtail from the starting line many if not most rules arguments during a session.

This doesn't mean that I will not make the content available to a player if he has a genuine need of it at the table (say for a prestige class or a status effect I'm too busy to look up, or the exact function of a magic item he just identified that I'm to lazy to look up).

It does mean that it helps keep the players' attention focused more on what's going on in session (the action) than on what's going on "behind the scenes" (i.e., the rules).

As for the theme here that the player needs mathematical representation in order to guage his character's actions, I've never, in 20 years of gaming, found that to be the case. It's simply a matter of learning how to ask the right question. Going with our swimmer example:

DM: You arrive at a swollen river. The water is moving quickly and is quite choppy. The orcs, your quarry, are on the other side and, before you can react, cut the rope bridge, sending it tumbling into the torrent. What do you do?
Player: How rough is this "torrent"?
DM: Very rough. As you look, you can even see a few small trees and heavy branches that have been uprooted by the water.
Player: Hmmm . . . Bob the fighter has a +10 to swimming checks and is only wearing leather armor. Does he feel that he has a good chance of being able to swing across this "torrent" safely? Or, in his experience opinion, would it be too difficult?
DM: *checking his notes and doing a bit of quick arithmatic* Bob thinks he might be able to manage it if nothing else were thrown in, but those orcs look like they have short bows and are pulling them out now. Either way, it would be very dangerous for him.
Player: Ok . . . *turning back to the other players* I think we need to find some way across other than swimming. What do you guys have?

The rules are inescapable, of course, but they never have to take center stage.

[nagora]

To me there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in this thread at all that the DM ever used that one sentence that would have solved his problem.
Well, firstly he said that this was "a few more instances", so the group has already seen that the DM is flexing the DMG to some extent, and he also said that he hinted strongly that he was doing the same thing this time. If he'd already established the point in previous sessions, a strong hint (taking his word for it) should be enough - more than enough, in fact.

Perhaps he should have told them that he was hinting at +4.

[Tormsskull]

2) If that is not the issue at hand, and does not belong in this thread, then why did you specifically post your opinion about the answer to that question in this thread?


For clarity's sake. I know I just have wishful thinking here, but having a thread come to some kind of majority consensus once in a while would be awesome.



3) You are extrapolating a great deal from the original post. More then I feel comfortable doing. All the OP said was that he made rulings different from the DMG, and the players immediately flipped it open "to quote and argue with me."


You believe that the image I linked extrapolated too much? Could you point out specifically where?



He did not say that they did argue with him.


Really? That was not your understanding based on what you just posted?



3) You are extrapolating a great deal from the original post. More then I feel comfortable doing. All the OP said was that he made rulings different from the DMG, and the players immediately flipped it open "to quote and argue with me."




To me there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in this thread at all that the DM ever used that one sentence that would have solved his problem.

Which is going back to the general issue of "Is the DM bound to do everything by the book?" Again, playstyle difference. If I held your viewpoint, then yeah, I might question the DM to.



Perhaps he should have told them that he was hinting at +4.


You owe me a keyboard, I just spit up Coke Zero on it :smalltongue:

[Thrawn183]

Now this is what I call a total divergant playstyle. It really goes to show you how differently people play the game. If my group were to read this paragraph they would guffaw, as I just did.


*Shrug* My DM doesn't have the time to look at every single encounter and decide whether or not its CR is appropriate. The last thing my DM wants is to accidentally throw an encounter at us that would totally wipe us out, and then have to save us which just shows that we're not really in much danger at all. The best you can easily do is try and get the players as close to where they are assumed to be. (though if you have a better idea, I'd be glad to hear it and pass it on up the ladder)

We already have enough problems in my group with powergamers and such, my poor DM just doesn't need any more hastle. Isn't that why the whole CR system was put in place? I mean, look how often we have threads here talking about how a party steamrolled something a DM expected to stop them or how they got destroyed by something the DM expected to be a cakewalk. My DM gets a really funny look on her face whenever she's changing something to save a PC or monster so that kind of thing doesn't work so well for immersion purposes.

Edit: Scratch this. I just realized where I'm coming from.
1) In the case with the swimmer above: I'd rather the player do the arithmatic rather than the DM so that the DM has more time to spend with the rest of the players.
AND
2) I've had some really bad experiences with railroading. I'd rather know the DC and know that I made it or failed rather than just have the DM decide whether or not I did to protect his plot. I'm tired of drowning because I wasn't supposed to swim across a river. I'm tired of gather information checks suddenly getting higher so that it takes multiple and we have to spend just enough time to find the vampire that it's night out.

Guess I've gone full circle to that whole trust thing.

[Raum]

Absolutely nothing, so people should just flat out say that's what they are doing. It is a preferential thing. Some people prefer lots of RPing, some people don't. Some people prefer lots of hack n slash, some don't.

It just seems to me that people are thinking that there is something wrong with preferring a tactics/numbers-first type of playstyle, so they are hiding it or masking it in pseudo-in character-anese.Please don't turn this into a "Role vs Roll" argument. Game mechanics should not prevent role playing. Knowledge of game mechanics certainly doesn't prevent role playing. In fact, so far as the mechanics facilitate decision making, they support role playing.

Role playing isn't following a DM's orders even if said orders are couched in terms of "your character thinks..." There is nothing preventing people from playing a role in a mechanics heavy game. If there was, role players would play a lighter system instead of D&D. Role playing is simply acting out a character's pattern of behavior. Since game mechanics are how a character interacts with the game world, knowing them facilitates role playing.


If the DM has made a ruling, and you have queried it and been answered and you then want to pull out the rulebook that is intended for DMs (clue is in the title of the book), then you are in a sense cheating because you are a player, not the DM. In my book that's a respect issue. Respect for your fellow players more than the GM. The argument is taking up the group's time after all.


If the rule in question is in the player's book (again, there is a clue in the title) then you are entitled to know in advance that it has been changed and, failing that, I would allow a "rewind" to let you reconsider your actions.Other than the title of the book, why does obfuscating rules make sense? How does not knowing the rules facilitate game play?


Rules that matter more than the DM designing an interesting and entertaining setting while treating the characters fairly? You're right, I don't think that a good RPG has rules like that. Nor do I know of any that try to. And, ultimately, it is not possible to design such a game even in theory anyway.

As to the general issue of judging effects: people simply are not nearly as good at calculating odds as is being proposed by some here. If the DM decides a curse results in -2 or -6 there is no reason to inform the player. Likewise, a description of a windy day as "Very gusty" is quite enough of a clue to a player that there's going to be a penalty on their archery. After the first shot, the player can start to pin it down more precisely. I agree, we can't calculate odds quite as exactly in real life. The game is a representation after all, it wouldn't be fun if as detailed and complex as daily life. Thing is we also need to remember it's a game. You appear to be saying finding out how the environment will affect a character's intended action should cost them an action. In cases such as temporary stat changes (curses) or NPC stats I may even agree but not with rules the PCs are expected to follow. Particularly not with rules as ubiquitous as wind speed, most environmental attack modifiers, or swimming.


I believe this is much more realistic than the proposal that all wind speeds are somehow sensed and converted to exact numbers by archers. As such, it is more immersive than throwing numbers (even numbers coded as magic words) around. Numbers - especially numbers that are unavailable in real life to people doing the same actions as the characters - simply stress the fact that you are dealing with a simulation rather than a reality.Perhaps it's simply preference but needing to "test the wind" once per combat / day / or whatever interval you assign doesn't feel immersive to me. Praying to Herne and hoping the arrow you just fired hits is immersive. That gets done a whole lot faster when you don't have to play twenty questions while trying to figure out just how strong the wind really is.

Game mechanics are a tool to facilitate interaction, game consistency, and game flow. Used transparently, they speed game play and often facilitate role play.

[nagora]

1) In the case with the swimmer above: I'd rather the player do the arithmatic rather than the DM so that the DM has more time to spend with the rest of the players.
For me, that's the best argument for that approach.

[Akimbo]

You believe that the image I linked extrapolated too much? Could you point out specifically where?

No I believe that your assumption of the player being a douche is extrapolation beyond what I would do. You are assuming that the player is being disrespectful or otherwise challenging the DM in an unwarranted way.


Really? That was not your understanding based on what you just posted?

Yes. You see, when I pick up an orange to eat it, I have not yet eaten it. And if someone across the table were to cut me off, or scream at me to stop, I might just not eat it. I have no evidence (not even the word of the OP) that anyone actually argued with him at any point, only that he thought they would.

For all I know he got upset with them before they had a chance to ask the simple question as I outlined in the above conversation.


Which is going back to the general issue of "Is the DM bound to do everything by the book?" Again, playstyle difference. If I held your viewpoint, then yeah, I might question the DM to.

No it isn't. I have explicitly said that the DM is not bound by the book. But if a player asks, "Are you sure? The rules state X." A good DM, a courteous DM, a respectful DM, any kind of DM deserving of the name really, should inform the player that he is aware of the rules, and is doing something else.

I do not see why you think the correct response to the situation is: "THAT'S IT! I CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE! GIVE ME YOUR BOOKS NOW!"

[Ulzgoroth]

Absolutely nothing, so people should just flat out say that's what they are doing. It is a preferential thing. Some people prefer lots of RPing, some people don't. Some people prefer lots of hack n slash, some don't.

It just seems to me that people are thinking that there is something wrong with preferring a tactics/numbers-first type of playstyle, so they are hiding it or masking it in pseudo-in character-anese.
Raum said it first, but this is just wrong. I don't want to know the numbers because I don't care about role-playing. I want the numbers because I cannot trust any other language to give me enough information to roleplay intelligently appropriately.

I have never seen a situation adequately represented by verbal/textual description to accurately understand what's going on. Especially since the situation's influence is going to be determined by the GM's understanding of the mechanics behind the description, which he may not even be trying to communicate.

For me, that's the best argument for that approach.
Yeah, every time I see a GM-player exchange of questions to get a single digit worth of information, I think "why would anyone want to spend 3-5 times as long as just stating the modifier in the first place would take?"

Though my PbP conditioning may be contributing there...it's practically impossible to have exchanges like that in a non-realtime medium. Even so, I would trust my arithmetic over my understanding of the GM's choice of words to effectively convey the situation any time.

[nagora]

No it isn't. I have explicitly said that the DM is not bound by the book. But if a player asks, "Are you sure? The rules state X." A good DM, a courteous DM, a respectful DM, any kind of DM deserving of the name really, should inform the player that he is aware of the rules, and is doing something else.

I do not see why you think the correct response to the situation is: "THAT'S IT! I CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE! GIVE ME YOUR BOOKS NOW!"
Please, please go back and read the OP. I'm not going to quote it again.

[Tormsskull]

Please don't turn this into a "Role vs Roll" argument. Game mechanics should not prevent role playing. Knowledge of game mechanics certainly doesn't prevent role playing. In fact, so far as the mechanics facilitate decision making, they support role playing.


This is not a Role vs Roll argument. This is an IC versus OOC argument. Do you give the player the In Character information ("The wind whips at you strongly. You know it would be difficult to shoot an arrow precisely in these conditions). Or the Out of Character information ("This area is now considered under the effects of "Severe Wind", that's -2 to fire, fly speed reduced by, etc.).

Some people prefer the in-character description, some people prefer the out-of-character description. What I was specifically arguing against is the people who are basically saying "give me the out of character information, because that's how my character actually sees things". That's a BS line.



Perhaps it's simply preference but needing to "test the wind" once per combat / day / or whatever interval you assign doesn't feel immersive to me.


You do not need to test the wind, because you do not need to know. Your character does not need to know that he has a -10% chance to hit in certain wind conditions. He should know that he has less of a chance.



Game mechanics are a tool to facilitate interaction, game consistency, and game flow. Used transparently, they speed game play and often facilitate role play.

TBH, I've had the exact opposite experience. The more we don't discuss mechanics at my table, the more immersed we get, which allows us to role play.

[Thrawn183]

For me, that's the best argument for that approach.

My group usually has around 6 PC's. It's pretty tough to find time for the DM to listen just to you.

Its actually why I prefer high level 4e to high level 3.x, you don't have a paladin making 5 attacks on a mount that makes a bunch more who has to recalculate his attack bonus for each one by how much he power attacks (not to mention deciding how much to power attack for the indecisive ones) and then calculating all the damage from those hits which also has to be done differently with each different amount you power attack for.

Gah, I just tell the DM to make a save and then tell them the effect if they don't already know it from the spell.

[nagora]

I have never seen a situation adequately represented by verbal/textual description to accurately understand what's going on. Especially since the situation's influence is going to be determined by the GM's understanding of the mechanics behind the description, which he may not even be trying to communicate.
Well, this is a culture clash. Those of us who play 1e (which has no skill system at all) play that way literally all the time. In fact, I play (not only GM) all RPGs that way. Verbal description is so dominant in my current group (where I am a player) that the character sheets no longer have any numbers on them at all and all rulings are ad-hoc.

Every situation should, IMO, be determined by the GM's understanding of what's happening, not of some mechanical estimate of what might happen in a game. If the mechanics do happen to be "close enough" then great - use them - otherwise they're just a nuisance.

[Raum]

So, the DM understands the guidelines in the DMG, has suggested that he's not sticking to them, and is being challenged by the player(s) on the subject.

This is also not a case of the DM mistrusting the players - they have actually started quoting pages at him.

IMO, free as they are to know the content of the DMG, the players don't get to tell me, as DM, to follow that content without divergence. Any player that feels that way can leave.Thing is we don't know the full situation from a post or two by one person. The OP asked what we as the audience would think of having our books taken away. Judging by the acrimony in this thread, I would suggest proceeding carefully...

I'll also guess the OP's rule change came as a surprise to the players. That's seldom good.


The OP has suggested that not allowing DMGs at the player side of the table as a solution. Given that no player has the right to force the DM to follow the printed rules (it actually says this in the rules), that seems a fair approach that falls short of the nuclear option of banning a player.As many of us have said, having the rules or not doesn't appear to be the issue. The core issue seems more about courtesy and respect. Or possibly about getting some back for a lack of courtesy or respect. Trying to punish players for their actions (as opposed to characters for character actions) is a difficult proposition. Even if the 'punishment' is simply banning use of a book.

It really comes down to communication. Set expectations up front. Surprise players with "cool plot twists" or with "unexpected NPCs" not with "nifty rule changes".

[nagora]

Thing is we don't know the full situation from a post or two by one person. The OP asked what we as the audience would think of having our books taken away. Judging by the acrimony in this thread, I would suggest proceeding carefully...

I'll also guess the OP's rule change came as a surprise to the players. That's seldom good.
He specifically says that it's a repeat situation, so I assumed that it was not a surprise.


It really comes down to communication. Set expectations up front.
My impression is that that's exactly what he had tried to do.

[Ulzgoroth]

Well, this is a culture clash. Those of us who play 1e (which has no skill system at all) play that way literally all the time. In fact, I play (not only GM) all RPGs that way. Verbal description is so dominant in my current group (where I am a player) that the character sheets no longer have any numbers on them at all and all rulings are ad-hoc.

Every situation should, IMO, be determined by the GM's understanding of what's happening, not of some mechanical estimate of what might happen in a game. If the mechanics do happen to be "close enough" then great - use them - otherwise they're just a nuisance.
My problem, though, isn't that it's determined by the GM's understanding of what's happening. That's happening either way, actually...even strictly out of the book, they're deciding which abstract category to drop their situation into. The problem is that there is not necessarily any strong coupling between the GM's understanding and the player's understanding. A raging torrent carrying trees downstream...that's great. But I haven't a clue whether you think my character can swim in it, unless I ask you specifically, at which point I still only have a weak idea (because 'good chance' and 'poor chance' are extremely loose terms).

If you are playing by rules I have access to, I can get a very good idea of whether I can swim it, without having to ask any additional questions. And I know if there's anything I can do to improve my chances, and how useful doing so would be. Again, without having to run every trivial idea past the GM and try to interpret the response.

[Matthew]

If you are playing by rules I have access to, I can get a very good idea of whether I can swim it, without having to ask any additional questions. And I know if there's anything I can do to improve my chances, and how useful doing so would be. Again, without having to run every trivial idea past the GM and try to interpret the response.

I think this is where there may be substantial difference in playstyle. I view the exchange of detail between players and game master to be a fun, even essential, part of adventure roleplaying games.

[AKA_Bait]

I think this is where there may be substantial difference in playstyle. I view the exchange of detail between players and game master to be a fun, even essential, part of adventure roleplaying games.

I think you hit the nail on the head. My group is not so much into that, to the point that we frequently as players or DMs try to figure out what the AC of creatures we are attacking is so we can just call it a hit or miss based on our own roll.

[Justin_Bacon]

When someone says "I need to know the exact numerical effects of an event because that allows my character to understand how it works" I call shananigans. The reason why you want the exact numerical effects is because you want to know the odds of successfully doing whatever you're attempting.

Here's the thing: In the real world, we have all kinds of sensory inputs that inform our decision-making process.

For example, take something as simple as jumping over a hole in the ground. In the real world not only can we see the exact size of the hole and the terrain around the hole, but we've also had decades of experience in our own bodies to give us an innate understanding of what we're physically capable of accomplishing.

In an RPG, on the other hand, we have none of that. You have a very narrow window comprised of only two things: What the DM tells you verbally and the mechanics modeling the situation.

I think it's absolutely necessary to give the mechanical information that correlates to the PCs' understanding of the world around them, because that compensates for the fact that the player can't see, feel, hear, touch, or even know everything that the PC can.

On the flip-side, I have no problem withholding mechanical information that the PC wouldn't have any way of knowing.

In any case, none of this seems to have any meaningful bearing on the question of whether or not the DMG should be withheld during play. There are all kinds of mechanical modifiers in the PHB. Is there really some reason why the players should have access to the modifiers for cover, but not the modifiers for wind? Why is it necessary to treat the modifiers for wind like some sort of top secret document?

[LibraryOgre]

I would have no problem with it. I tend to use it as a secondary mind for the GM (i.e. "Can someone find that rule for me?"), but if he wanted them handed in, I see no problem with it.

[Tormsskull]

I think it's absolutely necessary to give the mechanical information that correlates to the PCs' understanding of the world around them, because that compensates for the fact that the player can't see, feel, hear, touch, or even know everything that the PC can.


Yeah, that view point has been made several times. Comes down to prefereance. I don't visualize a hole in the ground by knowing that I need to beat DC 15 to jump over it. That doesn't tell me anything. If the DM says "Its a ten-foot wide hole", that's much more descriptive, and I can picture it in my head.

When a character is trying to fire an arrow at a creature in wind and they ask the DM for the numerical penalty they are going to suffer for that wind, they aren't trying to visualize the wind. Its not as if in their minds a -2 wind and a -4 wind look or feel different.

I'd agree that giving exact mechanics will definitely speed things along. That's an advantage of doing it that way for sure. And if you like it better that way, then it should be done that way.

But if you're actually trying to make the argument that numerical effects help a player to visualize, feel, hear, or in someway clarify in their imagination what their character is experiencing, I think you've failed miserably.

[Curmudgeon]

As a DM, I want my players to have access to all the books related to the part of the world they know about. (Stats of monsters and magic items they haven't yet identified are not included.) D&D is a collaborative storytelling effort. I'm not perfect. If I misremember something, I'd like them to catch it as soon as possible to minimize the damage of my mistake. While I'm dealing with one player, any others who want to check the rules are doing all of us a service. Screwing things up due to faulty memory is bad. Not allowing any chance of catching that mistake until after the whole gaming session is really bad.

Too many of the posts in this thread liken the DM to the reputed characteristics of a monotheistic deity:
All-powerful.
All-knowing.
Dumb as a stump. (If you always know everything, you have zero need for reasoning ability).
Personally, I think keeping your brain engaged is a good thing, whether your role is that of DM or player.

[Starbuck_II]

To me this was bad DMing on the part of the DM, because the conversation in the worst possible case should have gone like this:

DM: Blah.
Player: Opens book, finds passage, says, "Are you sure? The rules for X state Y."
DM: I know, I'm using different rules, trust me.
Player: Okay.

To me there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in this thread at all that the DM ever used that one sentence that would have solved his problem.

Depending on how bad the change was like Warlocks can't use Eldritch blast: I'd argue/ask why.
If he wants to talk about it after the session, fine, but he better not try to leave and pretend he didn't agree to discuss it.

I think bring books is fine. The DM can always houserule, but he should tell the players. He shouldn't assume he is following RAW.

[Jayabalard]

Well, this is a culture clash. Those of us who play 1e (which has no skill system at all) play that way literally all the time. In fact, I play (not only GM) all RPGs that way. I have a feeling that tends to stick with people regardless of what system you're playing... I've done the same in GURPS which has a pretty detailed skill system.


Perhaps he should have told them that he was hinting at +4.:biggrin:


Has anyone claimed that they do?Yes; the OP claimed that his players are doing just that.

[OneFamiliarFace]

In my experience, the primary reason why players insist on bringing the DMG to the table is precisely to hold it over the head of the DM. Likewise, players commonly use the MM at the table to look up monster stats on the fly ("Look here! On page 172, it says the thing's vulnerable to..."). While there are legitimate reasons for having these at the table (magic items, PrCs, summoning), I feel that these are heavily outweighed by the disruptive and negative effects that I've listed.

I too have experienced this once. To be fair, in the group in which I experienced it, the only other person who actually owned a DMG was a bit of a rules lawyer.

I, however, have a different reason for not wanting the DMG and MM and the table (though I do not specifically ban them): time. Even well-intentioned players will often not write down the simplest of things like, stats of their familiars or what their abilities do (yes, this includes spells from the PHB), which I think easily fit onto supplementary pages to your character sheet or note cards. Usually, even if a player thinks of what they want to do ahead of time, it is their turn just as they've found it in the book, so they still have to decide what they want to do with it. See: Druid Wildshape!!!

Still, I think players (especially younger players) often forget that the game is designed so everyone can have fun. This can lead to players trying to "beat the system" instead of working with the DM to have fun (because the DM needs to have fun too). Likewise, a DM forgetting this can lead to him forcing his players to "stick to the rules of the game" or "to the rules of reality" instead of letting them try to do what they want to do. So I think less dependency on the rules forces a happier gaming environment in general.

This is assuming the rules are being bent for everyone's benefit. Namely, they should end up being more inclusive than less inclusive (unless everyone agrees on the less inclusive rules before hand).

Still, I would recommend to the OP that he consider changing his playing style first, while talking to the players after session. If this doesn't make them less disruptive, then the unfortunate answer is often to find a new group, play a different game, or ask one of them to DM. Don't be snooty about it, just say you aren't having much fun being DM and ask if anyone else would want to do it.

My biggest beef with almost every DMG and PHB is that none of them do a great job of reminding people of a core fact: The DM is a person too. Most of them hold him responsible for everyone's fun, which is simply not the case. Everyone is equally responsible. This is why people shy away from one of the coolest roles in DnD. It's because they are afraid they'll be saddled with the burden of making sure everyone has fun!

[Thrud]

Still, I think players (especially younger players) often forget that the game is designed so everyone can have fun. This can lead to players trying to "beat the system" instead of working with the DM to have fun (because the DM needs to have fun too). Likewise, a DM forgetting this can lead to him forcing his players to "stick to the rules of the game" or "to the rules of reality" instead of letting them try to do what they want to do. So I think less dependency on the rules forces a happier gaming environment in general.


Very nice. Yes, this is an important fact. I think those of us who don't like numbers specifically being used have more fun that way because we put total trust in the DM to make our gaming experience fun. It really doesn't matter to me if the specific rule in the game is nerfed in one circumstance and not in another, as long as we all have fun whilst doing it. And I think this is a viewpoint that just cannot be understood until you can find a DM good enough to put total trust in not to {Scrubbed} up his role. Whilst a the same time the DM has to have total trust in the player not intentionally trying to {scrubbed} up the game just to prove he/she/it has more encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. That is the purpose of rule 0. Every other rule is subject to change at will by the DM. And if he is doing his job well, it shouldn't matter.

[Justin_Bacon]

Yeah, that view point has been made several times. Comes down to prefereance. I don't visualize a hole in the ground by knowing that I need to beat DC 15 to jump over it. That doesn't tell me anything. If the DM says "Its a ten-foot wide hole", that's much more descriptive, and I can picture it in my head.

When a character is trying to fire an arrow at a creature in wind and they ask the DM for the numerical penalty they are going to suffer for that wind, they aren't trying to visualize the wind.

You say it comes down to preference, but then you call me a liar. Is that really necessary?

[nagora]

In an RPG, on the other hand, we have none of that. You have a very narrow window comprised of only two things: What the DM tells you verbally and the mechanics modeling the situation.

I think it's absolutely necessary to give the mechanical information that correlates to the PCs' understanding of the world around them, because that compensates for the fact that the player can't see, feel, hear, touch, or even know everything that the PC can.
Having slept on it, I think part of the problem here and the reason there is such a clear split between the 3/4e crowd and older editon players is that the d20 skill system is so unintuative that players do need more mechanical information.

Basically, I think IRL people have a much smaller window between "auto success" and "auto fail" than what is simulated in d20. Imagine using a d6 instead of a d20 - the DM would find it much easier to work in terms like "Looks easy to you" or "A bit risky" or "No chance" without misleading the player or breaking the immersion with lots of numbers. With a d20 there simply aren't enough gradations of words to clearly guide the player.

In 1e, I generally give a lot more auto-succeeds out to people than true rolls; although I tend to let them roll for a "quality" result anyway. At the same time, I do say "You can't do that that way" a good deal as well.

Just a thought.

[Tormsskull]

You claim it's just a matter of preference.


The preference is between IC Information and OOC Information. Some people prefer it to be in-character, some prefer it to be out-of-character.



{Scrubbed}


{Scrubbed}

[AKA_Bait]

The preference is between IC Information and OOC Information. Some people prefer it to be in-character, some prefer it to be out-of-character.


Indeed, and it seems to me a good DM should be willing to cater to the preference of each of their players. A group can function perfectly fine with both kinds of player. As a general rule, I dislike taking books away because the player that prefers it OOC can't really get it the way they want (or at least not as practically as if they had a book) but leaving the books doesn't in any way hinder the DM from describing it to a player who wants it IC.

[JackShandy]

Every situation should, IMO, be determined by the GM's understanding of what's happening, not of some mechanical estimate of what might happen in a game. If the mechanics do happen to be "close enough" then great - use them - otherwise they're just a nuisance.


Does this apply to combat as well? I'm curious because I noticed you posted a cleaned up version of the weapon vs. armor table in the "Were monks better in 1st edition" thread.

[Knaight]

Worthless argument. I've tried. Even pointed out skill based games where people just roll a skill against a difficulty(ie, someone takes climb at mediocre(-1), you decide a great(+2) climber would typically climb this cliff successfully, so you say as much. Or a pit requires a great leap, or someone is a good(+1) swordsman. No luck.). Thats with the difficulty being the GMs understanding(For instance, an incredible wind probably requires a superb(+3) or legendary(+4) shot to hit someone through, depending on weapon.)

[nagora]

Does this apply to combat as well? I'm curious because I noticed you posted a cleaned up version of the weapon vs. armor table in the "Were monks better in 1st edition" thread.
Yes, mostly. If a player says he wants to kick a chair across the floor at an charging attacker I just rule on the spot based on the character's Dex and/or class and the situation (maybe a dice roll - high is good, low is bad); if they say they make an attack with their lucern hammer against an opponent with plate mail I use the rules as printed because it's easier and there's no evidence to suggest that anyone is expecting something special.

So, rules are there for when they save time and deliver what's expected, and the DM is there for when the rules are either wrong for that situation/world/group or simply don't cover the issue. Situation trumps rules every time, IMO.

[Thrud]

So, rules are there for when they save time and deliver what's expected, and the DM is there for when the rules are either wrong for that situation/world/group or simply don't cover the issue. Situation trumps rules every time, IMO.

Zigactly. Course, I am lazier than you, thus I like 3ed coz it does more work for me, but the principle is the same.

[Knaight]

Are you serious? D&D 3e has always been horrible for me to run, I have to prepare for a while, and it runs slowly, and there are too many stupid rules. Its not easier at all.

[hamlet]

Indeed, and it seems to me a good DM should be willing to cater to the preference of each of their players. A group can function perfectly fine with both kinds of player. As a general rule, I dislike taking books away because the player that prefers it OOC can't really get it the way they want (or at least not as practically as if they had a book) but leaving the books doesn't in any way hinder the DM from describing it to a player who wants it IC.

I agree, but at the same time, I think it's important for players to realize a few things:

1) That though their style may differ slightly, they should attempt to adjust to their DM's style and/or the style of the group they are in as well. If the DM isn't handing out specific numerical data in answer to your questions, then you shoud talk to the DM about it, or simply learn how to ask the question in a way that will get an answer.

2) Being a DM is, very often, a thankless job. In fact, a lot of people here have outright stated that it is up to the DM to make sure everybody else at the table has fun. Bunk. BUNK I say! The DM is entitled to have fun too.

3) Remember that the DM spends hours of his time every week outside of the game in order to prepare for the players' fun.

[AKA_Bait]

I agree, but at the same time, I think it's important for players to realize a few things:

1) That though their style may differ slightly, they should attempt to adjust to their DM's style and/or the style of the group they are in as well. If the DM isn't handing out specific numerical data in answer to your questions, then you shoud talk to the DM about it, or simply learn how to ask the question in a way that will get an answer.

2) Being a DM is, very often, a thankless job. In fact, a lot of people here have outright stated that it is up to the DM to make sure everybody else at the table has fun. Bunk. BUNK I say! The DM is entitled to have fun too.

3) Remember that the DM spends hours of his time every week outside of the game in order to prepare for the players' fun.

Well sure. Those all go to the 'Don't be a Jerk" rule. I think it's imperative on all sides for everyone not to be a jerk. Of course, if there were no jerk players, we wouldn't get to argue back and forth for eleven pages.

[Thoughtbot360]

Players do not have access to DMG during play. Ever. Nor do they have access to the scenario or NPC character sheets!

Insisting on accessing the DMG or MM during play is a banishable offense.

Really? Because I can find two things that players might have some business looking for while at the table:

1) Magic Item prices (Even if there are no magic item shops, Wizards still have to buy Scrolls to scribe, and players need the market price to make magic items), also remember the prestige classes. (Besides, its not like the players can use anything *else* thats in the DMG. Magic items, Prestige classes, and maybe setting-specific gear like gunpowder. What else is in the DMG thats so terrible for the players to see? Nothing!)
2) Speaking of Wizards, they also have Familiars and Summon Monster spells. Any Wizard worth his salt would have (probably) studied these creatures while he was learning how to summon them, and therefore its not like all the data in the MM is 100% out-of-character knowledge. Also the Druid has Wildshape, Animal Companion, and Summon Nature's Ally (That's TREE-oh I'm sorry, Freudian slip-THREE powers that use MM stats.)

[hamlet]

Well sure. Those all go to the 'Don't be a Jerk" rule. I think it's imperative on all sides for everyone not to be a jerk. Of course, if there were no jerk players, we wouldn't get to argue back and forth for eleven pages.

Didn't think you'd disagree, but my point was simply that it seems that of late, the default position is that it is the DM who is a jerk and players are, by default position, blameless.

It seems to be a common image to say the least.

I direct your attention here: Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/08/debate.html)

[AKA_Bait]

Didn't think you'd disagree, but my point was simply that it seems that of late, the default position is that it is the DM who is a jerk and players are, by default position, blameless.

It seems to be a common image to say the least.

I direct your attention here: Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/08/debate.html)

I'm not sure what that thread has to do with this alleged default position. 4e, by many accounts, seems to give the DM more, rather than less, freedom than 3.x in terms of strict rules adherence. Be that as it may.

I'll agree though, that it is frequently forgotten by posters that the DM is supposed to be having a good time as well. Although, the extremes of either end 'cut the annoying player or at least have his character captured and his animal companion made into several differently spiced meat pies' and 'you suck as a DM, bend over and take it like a soldier' are more prevalent. I think that's just the nature of message board discussions, rather than a general feel by players actually playing the games at the time. Afterall, we play these games with our friends, and don't we all want our friends to have fun too?

[hamlet]

I'm not sure what that thread has to do with this alleged default position. 4e, by many accounts, seems to give the DM more, rather than less, freedom than 3.x in terms of strict rules adherence. Be that as it may.

I'll agree though, that it is frequently forgotten by posters that the DM is supposed to be having a good time as well. Although, the extremes of either end 'cut the annoying player or at least have his character captured and his animal companion made into several differently spiced meat pies' and 'you suck as a DM, bend over and take it like a soldier' are more prevalent. I think that's just the nature of message board discussions, rather than a general feel by players actually playing the games at the time. Afterall, we play these games with our friends, and don't we all want our friends to have fun too?

It didn't have much to do with the topic of the thread, indeed, but was more of a side-comment. This thread has gone on long enough that it can tolerate them I think.

This is probably entirely off the topic, but I will say that I think the basic conceits, asumptions, and fundamental groundings of the game over the years has been completely changed and that is something that has lead to this discussion (the use of the DMG at table by playerse and the concept of restricting that). Even as short a time ago as 12 years ago, the idea of players pulling out a DMG during play was virtually unheard of! It simply wasn't done. That has, as is evidenced by this thread, been completely altered.

[AKA_Bait]

This is probably entirely off the topic, but I will say that I think the basic conceits, asumptions, and fundamental groundings of the game over the years has been completely changed and that is something that has lead to this discussion (the use of the DMG at table by playerse and the concept of restricting that). Even as short a time ago as 12 years ago, the idea of players pulling out a DMG during play was virtually unheard of! It simply wasn't done. That has, as is evidenced by this thread, been completely altered.

Well, that may be entirely the case. I didn't like the earlier editions of the game (prior to 3.x) nor the culture of play at that time. I would go off and make up my own system instead. If culture changed, I'd say it was for the better in that case. Perhaps we should direct other dicussion of this back over to the thread Matthew started.

[Ulzgoroth]

Having slept on it, I think part of the problem here and the reason there is such a clear split between the 3/4e crowd and older editon players is that the d20 skill system is so unintuative that players do need more mechanical information.

Basically, I think IRL people have a much smaller window between "auto success" and "auto fail" than what is simulated in d20. Imagine using a d6 instead of a d20 - the DM would find it much easier to work in terms like "Looks easy to you" or "A bit risky" or "No chance" without misleading the player or breaking the immersion with lots of numbers. With a d20 there simply aren't enough gradations of words to clearly guide the player.

In 1e, I generally give a lot more auto-succeeds out to people than true rolls; although I tend to let them roll for a "quality" result anyway. At the same time, I do say "You can't do that that way" a good deal as well.

Just a thought.
This is interesting. I think your first principles are questionable, but they do make your conclusions much more understandable.

I think the reality falls closer to 'real people don't often do things that they've got more than a minute chance of failing'. But the presence of the take-10 option does make that a bit brain-bending and probably poorly implemented in d20, so you may have a point about d20 being unintuitive there (do you need a modifier of DC-1, or DC-10 before you've mastered something? Should there be such a big gap?).

I don't think the range between 'impossible' and 'trivial' is that small, though.

[hamlet]

Well, that may be entirely the case. I didn't like the earlier editions of the game (prior to 3.x) nor the culture of play at that time. I would go off and make up my own system instead. If culture changed, I'd say it was for the better in that case. Perhaps we should direct other dicussion of this back over to the thread Matthew started.

I don't think it fits in that thread as it's a very esoteric kind of line of thought that, I feel, cannot hope to evolve without descending into an edition war.

That is the nature of modern public discourse, I think, that rational and cool-headed discussions are largely impossible now.

[Roderick_BR]

I wouldn't do it. I'd just ask players to not read the books during the games. If there is some doubt really important, I'll read it myself, unless I actually ask a player to find it for me to save time.

[AKA_Bait]

I don't think it fits in that thread as it's a very esoteric kind of line of thought that, I feel, cannot hope to evolve without descending into an edition war.

That is the nature of modern public discourse, I think, that rational and cool-headed discussions are largely impossible now.

These boards have been pretty good about it IME. If you want to go start an additional thread I'll jump on it and I'm, usually, civil. Worst case is some hotheaded people eventually get it locked.

[Thrud]

Really? Because I can find two things that players might have some business looking for while at the table:

1) Magic Item prices (Even if there are no magic item shops, Wizards still have to buy Scrolls to scribe, and players need the market price to make magic items), also remember the prestige classes. (Besides, its not like the players can use anything *else* thats in the DMG. Magic items, Prestige classes, and maybe setting-specific gear like gunpowder. What else is in the DMG thats so terrible for the players to see? Nothing!)
2) Speaking of Wizards, they also have Familiars and Summon Monster spells. Any Wizard worth his salt would have (probably) studied these creatures while he was learning how to summon them, and therefore its not like all the data in the MM is 100% out-of-character knowledge. Also the Druid has Wildshape, Animal Companion, and Summon Nature's Ally (That's TREE-oh I'm sorry, Freudian slip-THREE powers that use MM stats.)

Well, magic item creation is usually something that happens between actual play sessions. I mean, you may take care of it at the beginning or end of the game, or perhaps you are forced to pass a long period of time in the game, and players do it then. But otherwise there is no need to be flipping through books during game time.

As for wizard familiars, etc, yes, it makes sense that the player knows them. Why not copy the stats out onto your char sheet, or even just a blank piece of paper. THen it is always handy for you, and you don't have to slow the game down by going 'wait a sec, I have to look something up' each time you want to do something slightly funky with your familiar.

Finally, as far as summon spells, etc, knowing about a monster, and having detailed encyclopedic knowledge about every single one of its strengths and weaknesses, are two totally different things. Not to mentiona having to recall those specifics in a high stress situation most of the time i.e. during combat. I just don't really buy either of these examples.

But hey, that is just my game.

[hamlet]

These boards have been pretty good about it IME. If you want to go start an additional thread I'll jump on it and I'm, usually, civil. Worst case is some hotheaded people eventually get it locked.

I've thought about it, but whereas you see these boards as pretty good about it, I, on the other hand, see no good coming from this discussion here.

Don't know for sure whether or not I'll start a thread. I'll probably have to sleep on it before anything. Posting after being awake for 4 days straight is not wise . . .

[Justin_Bacon]

This is probably entirely off the topic, but I will say that I think the basic conceits, asumptions, and fundamental groundings of the game over the years has been completely changed and that is something that has lead to this discussion (the use of the DMG at table by playerse and the concept of restricting that). Even as short a time ago as 12 years ago, the idea of players pulling out a DMG during play was virtually unheard of! It simply wasn't done. That has, as is evidenced by this thread, been completely altered.

Not really. I was having this same debate on FidoNet back in '92.

These debates existed even in the days of 1st Edition, when the concept of the DMG containing secrets that should be unknown to the players was literally laid down in the text of the rulebooks. But, realistically, lots of players were also DMs and that mystique didn't last very long (if it ever existed at all).

And since no one has answered the most pertinent question, let me repeat it: In any case, none of this seems to have any meaningful bearing on the question of whether or not the DMG should be withheld during play. There are all kinds of mechanical modifiers in the PHB. Is there really some reason why the players should have access to the modifiers for cover, but not the modifiers for wind? Why is it necessary to treat the modifiers for wind like some sort of top secret document?

[nagora]

Is there really some reason why the players should have access to the modifiers for cover, but not the modifiers for wind? Why is it necessary to treat the modifiers for wind like some sort of top secret document?
Why is it necessary to treat the modifers for cover as public knowledge?

[AKA_Bait]

Why is it necessary to treat the modifers for cover as public knowledge?

In that case though, were talking about taking away all the books then right? Including the PBH.

I think Justin is getting at the question of why some mechanical knowledge should be avaliable to the players and other mechanical knowledge not. What is the virtue of giving them an incomplete picture of the mechanics of the system?

[Thrud]

And since no one has answered the most pertinent question, let me repeat it: In any case, none of this seems to have any meaningful bearing on the question of whether or not the DMG should be withheld during play. There are all kinds of mechanical modifiers in the PHB. Is there really some reason why the players should have access to the modifiers for cover, but not the modifiers for wind? Why is it necessary to treat the modifiers for wind like some sort of top secret document?


This is definately a style of play thing. For me, there are a couple of reasons. I keep many rules that are in the DMG/MM secret from the players during play, because the players are in a high stress situation and should not have access to an encyclopedia of knowledge whilst play is in session.

The other reason is that I just don't buy the fact that players have exact numerical odds on whether or not a course of action will work out the way they want it. I will, however, give them a very good idea of how it will work out since I assume that the characters do know their own skills reasonably well. So, if an archer wants to shoot at an enemy into a strong headwind, I will work out just what a chance to hit they have and let them know in general terms. "You have a very good chance. You have a poor chance, you have a decent chance." And I will leave it at that. And honestly that should be enough. Because in the real world I defy anyone to come up with accurate numbers on the fly in a high stress situation to figure out the statistical chances of a given action succeeding.

But as I have pointed out in other threads, I like a very immersive game play so I tend to shy away from numbers as much as possible. That is tricky in 3ed, but I trim wherever possible.

[nagora]

In that case though, were talking about taking away all the books then right? Including the PBH.

I think Justin is getting at the question of why some mechanical knowledge should be avaliable to the players and other mechanical knowledge not. What is the virtue of giving them an incomplete picture of the mechanics of the system?
The virtue is in not encouraging the players to think in terms of numbers but rather in terms of what their character is doing and how that relates to the world around them. The goal is to minimise references to our world and maximise references to their world.

The players' handbook should tell them things that: a) they can't extrapolate from reality, an b) would know for definite in the gameworld, or c) are unavoidable in terms of bookkeeping (such as encumbrance) or sheer inconvenience to the process of play if the DM has to explain them all (eg, spell effects).

Really, as a player, my ideal is that I never see any mechanics other than rolling the dice to resolve something that is uncertain. As a DM my ideal is never to discuss anything with the players that could not be resolved by standing talking with the character. The closer I can get to these ideals the happier I am as a player or DM, generally speaking.

Characters should not know that x cover gives them a y% defensive bonus, nor should a summoner know that the creature summoned does a specific amount of damage. In neither case is it easy to play without that knowledge escaping to the players, but it can be done and there is no harm done to the players, in fact they may enjoy it more.

[AKA_Bait]

The virtue is in not encouraging the players to think in terms of numbers but rather in terms of what their character is doing and how that relates to the world around them. The goal is to minimise references to our world and maximise references to their world.

So, a playstyle thing? As some players have an easier time of this / more fun when the numbers are involved.


Characters should not know that x cover gives them a y% defensive bonus, nor should a summoner know that the creature summoned does a specific amount of damage. In neither case is it easy to play without that knowledge escaping to the players, but it can be done and there is no harm done to the players, in fact they may enjoy it more.


So, essentially, you would advocate leaving on the bare essentials of how, mechanically speaking, a PC attempts to do something (regardless of any situational/environmental modifers) in the PHB and moving the rest to the DMG?

[Thrud]

So, a playstyle thing? As some players have an easier time of this / more fun when the numbers are involved.

Definitely.


So, essentially, you would advocate leaving on the bare essentials of how, mechanically speaking, a PC attempts to do something (regardless of any situational/environmental modifers) in the PHB and moving the rest to the DMG?

Yep, but it goes further than that. I ask my players to trust that I am not intentionally trying to screw up the game or mess with them, and not bother with the books at all. I have pretty detailed knowledge of the rules, and if I don't in a given section I can usually make something up on the fly that will hold coherently. And if you ask players to do things that way you have less arguing over rules, less time spent flipping to find rules, and tend to get about 3 times more play out of a given game session. Honestly, try it some time. Ask your players to just trust you and let you handle every rules issue, as that is your job as DM. Ask them not to crack the books if at all possible. Be polite. Don't demand. But if you do this every time, you really can get so much more out of the game when everyone starts to cooperate with each other, and the DM, to tell an interactive story, and stops trying to bend the rules in such a way as to 'beat' the DM.

[nagora]

So, essentially, you would advocate leaving on the bare essentials of how, mechanically speaking, a PC attempts to do something (regardless of any situational/environmental modifers) in the PHB and moving the rest to the DMG?
I would, and that's one reason I prefer the lack of a skill system in 1e to having one in later editions.

Of course, the DM, as I think I implied, has to make sure that any real-world assumptions they may have that don't hold in the game world are understood by the players, at least insofar as the characters would not have those assumptions. Really, I see that as the main function of any players' book in any system.

As to the fun with numbers thing, I wonder if anyone really enjoys numbers more as an absolute, or is it that in an overly complex system they feel more confident the more information they can gather about that system?

Well, each to their own anyway. I think I've said all that I need to on this - probably more than once:smallwink:

[hamlet]

Not really. I was having this same debate on FidoNet back in '92.

These debates existed even in the days of 1st Edition, when the concept of the DMG containing secrets that should be unknown to the players was literally laid down in the text of the rulebooks. But, realistically, lots of players were also DMs and that mystique didn't last very long (if it ever existed at all).

And since no one has answered the most pertinent question, let me repeat it: In any case, none of this seems to have any meaningful bearing on the question of whether or not the DMG should be withheld during play. There are all kinds of mechanical modifiers in the PHB. Is there really some reason why the players should have access to the modifiers for cover, but not the modifiers for wind? Why is it necessary to treat the modifiers for wind like some sort of top secret document?

I have answered this question, more than once.

But if you wish, I will answer it again.

1) Nobody except those misrepresenting the concept that the DMG should remain closed during play to players is talking about concealing, obfuscating, or otherwise sequestering the rules from players.

2) For the most part, there is no information in the DMG that a player should want access to during play. This is, of course, not true by the time 3.x rolled around, but that is simply a case of catastrophically poor book design.

3) In addition to #2 above, there are no actual rules in the DMG (excepting, again, post 3.x) and so there no concealment of rules anyway.

4) Restricting players' access to the DMG for the sake of arguing a ruling of the DM is a legitimite and effective means of helping the DM perform his function of keeping the game session progressing and maintaining control over the situation.

5) Not least of all, restricting access to the book during play is, in my experience, the best way of avoiding significant time delays during play and focusing players' attention on what is happening in the game rather than the rules themselves.


And you are correct, in one way: that the reality of restricted player access to the DMG during play* was never actual. Please note, though, as I have said before, that this restriction is, for the most part, a pro forma arrangement. It was, in effect, a matter of the players having a polite amnesia and a cordial relationship with the DM. When a player who had full knowledge of the printed text of the DMG asked the DM about its content in regards to a specific issue (a modifier or whatever pertaining to the immediate circumstance), it was a cordial way of asking whether or not the DM had made a modification to that printed text or was using it as is or was ignoring it entirely.

At its core, this is not at all about restricting the players' knowledge or enforcing the DM's power, but rather reinforcing the OLD SCHOOL philosophy that it is not the rules that govern the game and the world, but the DM's rulings. Some here argue that it is the other way around, that the rules themselves are the final governance. I, respectfully, disagree.

*Please note, again, that I am not talking about forbidding the players to ever pick up the book. In fact, I encourage my players to read it. Just not at the table while the game is in session, and not to come with memorized page numbers and text to hammer me over rulings. The DMG is supposed to be guidlines and guidance for the DM and shouldn't have anything in it that players would need access to during the game.

[Justin_Bacon]

I have answered this question, more than once. But if you wish, I will answer it again.

I think it's amusing that you say that, but then you fail to actually answer the question.

Now, let's address some of your other points.


2) For the most part, there is no information in the DMG that a player should want access to during play. This is, of course, not true by the time 3.x rolled around, but that is simply a case of catastrophically poor book design.

This is an odd argument. If there's no reason for the players to want to access the DMG, why are they doing so? Clearly your entire premise is wrong.

In addition, when we look at the 2nd Edition DMG we find rules for: Spell books, spell research, advanced combat rules, and rules for magical items.

In 1st Edition, it's almost trivial to find rules in the DMG that the player might want to access. The saving throw tables and to-hit tables are in the DMG, for pete's sake.

So your contention that, prior to 3.x, there were no rules pertinent to the players located in the DMG is also completely wrong.


3) In addition to #2 above, there are no actual rules in the DMG (excepting, again, post 3.x) and so there no concealment of rules anyway.

In what universe are the saving throw tables and to-hit tables "not actual rules"?


4) Restricting players' access to the DMG for the sake of arguing a ruling of the DM is a legitimite and effective means of helping the DM perform his function of keeping the game session progressing and maintaining control over the situation.

This argument has no traction because you can just as easily argue that the players shouldn't have access to the PHB, either. Again: Why is it acceptable for them to argue about cover modifiers and to-hit rolls (located in the PHB) but not falling damage (located in the DMG)?

Of course, in 1st Edition the situation is reversed: Falling damage was located in the PHB and the to-hit tables were located in the DMG. So I guess if I'm a player at your table in 1985 you'd be A-OK with me questioning you about falling damage, but in 2005 you'd be throwing a hissy-fit because I was questioning your about falling damage.



Is there really some reason why the players should have access to the modifiers for cover, but not the modifiers for wind?
For me, there are a couple of reasons. I keep many rules that are in the DMG/MM secret from the players during play, because the players are in a high stress situation and should not have access to an encyclopedia of knowledge whilst play is in session.

The other reason is that I just don't buy the fact that players have exact numerical odds on whether or not a course of action will work out the way they want it.

This is so amusing for me. I mean, you guys must be aware that you're not answering the question, right?

[Thrud]

This is so amusing for me. I mean, you guys must be aware that you're not answering the question, right?

I will repeat explicitly the important words.

For ME,

(note the ME, there)

That is the only part that is important. You feel differently. Fine, do whatever you want in your game. But I pretty explicetly stated that no matter what other factors come into play, I try to shy away from numbers in my game as much as possible. That is the only reason I require. You can tell me I am wrong. But you cannot tell me that is not a reason. It is a reason. It is just one that you apparently disagree with. Fine, I accept that. But I have found that since I instituted the 'just trust me' rule I get about 6 hours of game time out of my games, rather than 2 hours of game time and 4 hours of bickering over statistics.

[AKA_Bait]

I think it's amusing that you say that, but then you fail to actually answer the question.


This is so amusing for me. I mean, you guys must be aware that you're not answering the question, right?

Now, now. They answered the question. Essentially, it's that for their style of play access to mechanical information outside of what is required for the PC to initate actions (regardless of circumstance) hurts the immersion of their players. They feel it's better for that information to be transmitted by the DM during play in non-mechanical terms. That's a fine answer. It may not be one that works for your playstyle, or mine, but it's not wholly unreasonable. It could be unreasonable, potentially, if the rest of their group had a playstyle similar to yours or mine.


This argument has no traction because you can just as easily argue that the players shouldn't have access to the PHB, either. Again: Why is it acceptable for them to argue about cover modifiers and to-hit rolls (located in the PHB) but not falling damage (located in the DMG)?

And they have agreed that if they could excise those portions of the PHB as well, they would. However the basic information I mentioned above is also contained in that book, so denying the book entirely doesn't work.

I strongly suspect that they would also argue that the players shouldn't be arguing about cover modifiers either. I'd agree with them there, since I don't think arguing about any of the rules for more than 30 seconds has a place during play at all.

[hamlet]

I think it's amusing that you say that, but then you fail to actually answer the question.

No, I did answer the question. Read it again. Read again what I've posted several times in this thread. I may not have adressed your specific example, but I answered the question.



Now, let's address some of your other points.


Oh let's.




This is an odd argument. If there's no reason for the players to want to access the DMG, why are they doing so? Clearly your entire premise is wrong.

In addition, when we look at the 2nd Edition DMG we find rules for: Spell books, spell research, advanced combat rules, and rules for magical items.

In 1st Edition, it's almost trivial to find rules in the DMG that the player might want to access. The saving throw tables and to-hit tables are in the DMG, for pete's sake.

So your contention that, prior to 3.x, there were no rules pertinent to the players located in the DMG is also completely wrong.


Clearly, your logic is inescapable. It's not like I said that everything in the DMG was essentially a guidline and not indispensible to running a PC or something.

In 2nd edition, you, as a player, didn't need rules on spell books, research, or magic items. These things were governed entirely by the DM and not the players. You'll also notice that most, if not all, of those sections are marked as optional or as possible examples, not hard and fast rules excepting of course the magic items which, frankly, the players were not privy to until the identified what magic items they actually had at which point the DM simply told them what they did.

In 1st edition, players didn't need to-hit tables or saving throw tables at their disposal simply because it wasn't crucial for them to know them. In terms of to-hit, you rolled your d20, applied penalties and bonuses and notified your DM of the resulting number who then informed you whether you hit or not. The same goes for saving throws. This information wasn't needed for the minute by minute operation of your character.



In what universe are the saving throw tables and to-hit tables "not actual rules"?


In pretty much the only one that matters (this one) as they were completely open to modification and alteration as the DM saw fit. Those tables were one possible (yet preferable) system of resolution, but certainly not the only one.



This argument has no traction because you can just as easily argue that the players shouldn't have access to the PHB, either. Again: Why is it acceptable for them to argue about cover modifiers and to-hit rolls (located in the PHB) but not falling damage (located in the DMG)?

Of course, in 1st Edition the situation is reversed: Falling damage was located in the PHB and the to-hit tables were located in the DMG. So I guess if I'm a player at your table in 1985 you'd be A-OK with me questioning you about falling damage, but in 2005 you'd be throwing a hissy-fit because I was questioning your about falling damage.


My argument is entirely without traction? Really? You mean, it's not possible that some people prefer to have things like to-hit tables, saving throw tables, the specifics of cover and concealment modifiers, and falling damage removed from the certainty of the PHB and into the mutable world of the DMG?

And no, I don't "throw a hissy-fit" because somebody questions me about falling damage nor when they ask me if they failed or succeeded on a saving throw. Even when those things are spelled out explicitly in the books, it's pretty well understood, at my table at least, that they are not hard and fast rules, but are suggestions.

As an aside, I view it as a mistake to have moved to-hit and saving throw data from the DMG and into the PHB. It wasn't the best move on the part of the 2e designers.

[Thrud]

Hmm, that many ninjas in one place, we better all watch out or the Tick might show up and throw a chimney at us.

:smallbiggrin:

[nagora]

In 1st Edition, it's almost trivial to find rules in the DMG that the player might want to access. The saving throw tables and to-hit tables are in the DMG, for pete's sake.

Why on earth would the players need to see those?!

There's nothing in the 1e DMG that the players need to know, except perhaps the age brackets for the races.

[hamlet]

Hmm, that many ninjas in one place, we better all watch out or the Tick might show up and throw a chimney at us.

:smallbiggrin:

Who's the bigger nerd?

You for making that joke, or me for understanding it?

[AKA_Bait]

Who's the bigger nerd?

You for making that joke, or me for understanding it?

I'd say all three of us are equal.

SPOON!

[Thrud]

:smallbiggrin:

[hamlet]

I'd say all three of us are equal.

SPOON!

Egalitarian nerdom. Truly it is a brave new world.

[Matthew]

I was gonna yell "Spoon!" there, but I see AKA_Bait beat me to it... :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

I agree, but at the same time, I think it's important for players to realize a few things:

1) That though their style may differ slightly, they should attempt to adjust to their DM's style and/or the style of the group they are in as well. If the DM isn't handing out specific numerical data in answer to your questions, then you shoud talk to the DM about it, or simply learn how to ask the question in a way that will get an answer.

2) Being a DM is, very often, a thankless job. In fact, a lot of people here have outright stated that it is up to the DM to make sure everybody else at the table has fun. Bunk. BUNK I say! The DM is entitled to have fun too.

3) Remember that the DM spends hours of his time every week outside of the game in order to prepare for the players' fun.
1) The GM should adjust more to the players, although some things just don't fall into that, and a better group would work.

2) Its up to the GM to make sure everybody else at the table has fun. Its the most fun, fulfilling, and rewarding job there is, and better than being a player.

3) Some GMs do, a lot don't. A roleplaying session requires no preparation, and as for hack and slash in a lot of the heavier rules systems where you can't just wing monsters stats and such can be grabbed off online, stuck in a word document, and printed pretty quickly.

[RobertFisher]

Wow. Long thread. Again I find myself apologizing for not reading it all.

Whether a ruling comes out of a book or out of my skull, I think I have to do everything in my power—when I’m judge—to ensure that the players have adequate information to make good decisions. Keeping in mind, of course, that part of the fun is that there are almost always some amount of secrecy or uncertainty. But it has to be the right kind.

I’m happy to discuss rules and rulings. I encourage it. Depending upon the group, however, we may limit how much of that happens during the game. Some groups, those kinds of discussions are as much of the fun as the game itself, so we’ll take the time to have them.

If a player is being a problem—making the game significantly less fun for me (or the rest of the group)—I have a simple response. I vacate the judge’s chair and make it clear that I’m more than happy to be a player instead if they don’t like the way I’m running the game.

[Tormsskull]

3) Some GMs do, a lot don't. A roleplaying session requires no preparation, and as for hack and slash in a lot of the heavier rules systems where you can't just wing monsters stats and such can be grabbed off online, stuck in a word document, and printed pretty quickly.

I'd love to hear your definition of a roleplaying session that requires no preparation.

[Raum]

I'd love to hear your definition of a roleplaying session that requires no preparation.Role playing doesn't require much preparation if any. Children do it all the time. In RP games, the GM only needs to decide what an NPC's personality and goals are to role play effectively. That is often pure improvisation - I only prepare more important NPCs ahead of time.

It's the mechanics of the game that take time for me...probably one reason I like light systems.

[Tormsskull]

Role playing doesn't require much preparation if any. Children do it all the time.

I'd say children are more apt to play "Make Believe". What differentiates make believe from roleplaying (as it pertains to RPGs or D&D in particular)? I'd say the level of involvement.

If I guess that a player is going to want to speak with any particular NPC in detail, I take a lot of time to flesh them out. I like to know what the NPC looks like, what their goals are, their history, interesting experiences, etc.

Sure, you can treat them as simple short-bits of dialogue, but I feel actually taking to time to develop them shows the players that in the world, these NPCs are real people.

When I create a character I put a lot of time into developing their backstory, history, goals, fears, strengths, etc. I do this in order to bring them to life in the fantasy world. Rather than being "Bob the fighter" they have a level of depth to them that lends its self to roleplaying.

I would expect the DM to do the same for NPCs appearing in a "roleplaying session".

[turkishproverb]

Role playing doesn't require much preparation if any. Children do it all the time. In RP games, the GM only needs to decide what an NPC's personality and goals are to role play effectively. That is often pure improvisation - I only prepare more important NPCs ahead of time.

It's the mechanics of the game that take time for me...probably one reason I like light systems.

Well, this is mostly true if you don't mind a world that is inconsistant or overly unpredictable. Otherwise, it is a little harder to produce a believable role playing environment.

[Xyk]

I'm not gonna read more than the first page.

On the issue of summoners, I like to think of it as character knowledge. If they don't know which is more powerful between a dire lion or dire bear, then neither does the summoner.

I think the players should be allowed access to the rules through the DMG, but not the monster manual unless they buy it in-game and it would be ridiculously expensive.

[Knaight]

I'd say children are more apt to play "Make Believe". What differentiates make believe from roleplaying (as it pertains to RPGs or D&D in particular)? I'd say the level of involvement.

Its the exact same thing, but where people care more, and the world is more consistent. Creative, quick thinking GMs can wing stuff in some cases, in a consistent and believable world, assuming that they don't have to deal with mechanics. Make Believe is typically roleplaying, or more specifically LARPing, but shallower and more fanciful because children tend to be more idealistic, and sheltered, and simply haven't had as much time to see the world and read and such.

[turkishproverb]

Its the exact same thing, but where people care more, and the world is more consistent. Creative, quick thinking GMs can wing stuff in some cases, in a consistent and believable world, assuming that they don't have to deal with mechanics. Make Believe is typically roleplaying, or more specifically LARPing, but shallower and more fanciful because children tend to be more idealistic, and sheltered, and simply haven't had as much time to see the world and read and such.

Any amtguard member can tell you Larp can have rules. Lots of rules.

[Knaight]

No "Make Believe" is typically LARPing because the kids are usually running around, swinging around sticks or carrying dolls, etc. Amount of rules has nothing to do with it.

[turkishproverb]

No "Make Believe" is typically LARPing because the kids are usually running around, swinging around sticks or carrying dolls, etc. Amount of rules has nothing to do with it.

My point was "make Believe" usually doesn't have the rules Larping does.

[Raum]

I'd say children are more apt to play "Make Believe". What differentiates make believe from roleplaying (as it pertains to RPGs or D&D in particular)? I'd say the level of involvement.If involvement is the measure I suspect children role play far better than most of us adults. :) Children tend to commit 100% to the action or thought of the moment. Children are usually less consistent but certainly no less involved.


If I guess that a player is going to want to speak with any particular NPC in detail, I take a lot of time to flesh them out. I like to know what the NPC looks like, what their goals are, their history, interesting experiences, etc.You can flesh NPCs out in as much detail as you like in a fairly short period. I typically want to know three things about NPCs: their goals, resources, and limitations. Everything else can be extrapolated from those.


Sure, you can treat them as simple short-bits of dialogue, but I feel actually taking to time to develop them shows the players that in the world, these NPCs are real people.I didn't' say anything about treating them as "short bits of dialog." If I know an NPC's goals I can start planning what he's doing or saying to reach them. If I know his resources and weaknesses as well I can plan an entire encounter, possibly even adventure.


When I create a character I put a lot of time into developing their backstory, history, goals, fears, strengths, etc. I do this in order to bring them to life in the fantasy world. Rather than being "Bob the fighter" they have a level of depth to them that lends its self to roleplaying.Please, why do you think an NPC is shallow just because someone spends less time preparing? Bob isn't a fighter at all! He's a sneaky sum**** with a penchant for sticking knives in people who irritate him and a burning desire to aquire enough gold to never work another day in a very long life.

Besides, how do you prepare for NPCs you hadn't planned on having meet the PCs?


I would expect the DM to do the same for NPCs appearing in a "roleplaying session".Have you ever considered that Monopoly can be a role playing game? You have penny pinching landlords, loan sharks, and poor begging tenants... It can be lots of fun! :smallcool:


Well, this is mostly true if you don't mind a world that is inconsistant or overly unpredictable. Otherwise, it is a little harder to produce a believable role playing environment.Why? What does consistency, predictability, or believability have to to with the number of words you put on paper? As Cicero stated, "Brevity is a great charm of eloquence."

[turkishproverb]

Why? What does consistency, predictability, or believability have to to with the number of words you put on paper? As Cicero stated, "Brevity is a great charm of eloquence."

Well, I was talking about time preparing, not words on paper. There is a difference.

[Raum]

Well, I was talking about time preparing, not words on paper. There is a difference.There's certainly a difference between time and words but I still don't see the relationship consistency, predictability, or believability have with preparation time. Once I know their goals, resources, and limitations, do I really need to add time in order to attain believability?

[turkishproverb]

There's certainly a difference between time and words but I still don't see the relationship consistency, predictability, or believability have with preparation time. Once I know their goals, resources, and limitations, do I really need to add time in order to attain believability?

Most people need time to create well thought out characters, histories, geographies, etc. I'm sure someone out there can do it ALL off the cuff, but i doubt even the people who think they're winging it have truly done no preparation in terms of world/character building.

[Superglucose]

That's a fairly standard rule in my groups. I've never had free access to the MM or DMG during a game of D&D. My group usually practices limited access... if you're summoning a monster, you are perfectly within your rights to use the MM for rules pertaining to THAT MONSTER. Also we employ a no-asshat rule which basically prevents people going, "Hmm, I wonder how much HP that Torrasque starts with? Well, I'll summon a Tendriculous and since they're on the same page I can sneak a peak at the Torrasque!"

Similar rules for looking at planar travel, prestige classes, etc. But you must ask the DM, "Please may I have a DMG/MM to look up XYZ?" The DM may very well say, "Um, no. Sucks to be you." More often than not our DMs say, "Sure, but please make it quick."

[Justin_Bacon]

{Scrubbed}

[Tormsskull]

You can flesh NPCs out in as much detail as you like in a fairly short period.


I can't. It actually takes me quite some time, which I always thought was because I was adding a lot of depth and detail to them. Maybe I've been doing it wrong this whole time?



I didn't' say anything about treating them as "short bits of dialog."


I know, that's my label for your description of no-prep, detailed NPCs.




Please, why do you think an NPC is shallow just because someone spends less time preparing?


Simple logic, I suppose. If I have 1 minute to create an NPC, I'm not going to be able to develop as much about that character's personality, history, perceptions, etc, as compared to when I have 4 hours.




Besides, how do you prepare for NPCs you hadn't planned on having meet the PCs?


This would fall under the category of NPCs the players are unlikely to strike up long conversations with. I've yet to find a PC who grills Random Merchant A about where he grew up, what his hobbies are, etc.



Have you ever considered that Monopoly can be a role playing game?


No. I wouldn't call that roleplaying.



Why? What does consistency, predictability, or believability have to to with the number of words you put on paper?


Once again, simple logic. Having enough time to flesh an NPC out means creating a background. Where did this character come from? Which city? Did they like it there? Why did they leave? Are their parents alive? Do they have any brothers or sisters? Did they like them?

Everyone has fun with a different level of RP. Some people like to say "So what's your name? Nice to meet you. Where can I kill some monsters and take their stuff?"

Others like really in-depth character development and very detailed NPCs. If you prefer in-depth character development and detailed NPCs, I would state as a matter of fact that you can't RP them with no preperation.

[Thrud]

Uh... No. They didn't. I can see how you might be fooled by the fact that they wrote a whole bunch of words while quoting the question. But since none of those words actually answered the question, they didn't actually answer the question.

Again, actually I did. You just disagree with my reasoning. That is fine. But even when I say that something is in 'my opinion' that is in fact a reason. Unless you would like to say that my opinion actually has no meaning, in which case we are done speaking.




Have fun perpetuating your weird fetishization of the rulebooks while feeling some sort of warped "empowerment" over your ability to "control" your players' access to information.

Ciao.

And as I said before, for me it is simply about not breaking game immersion. Not any sort of empowerment. But then my players are adults who understand that if a reasonable person says 'hey, I would like to run my game this way. Please trust me and go with it.' Oddly enough my players have told me that they really enjoy playing that way. But then again that is only their opinions, so I guess for you that doesn't actually count as a reason either.

[nagora]

You're actually trying to claim that PC wizards in 2nd Edition didn't have spell books?
Having spell books and having access to rules on spell books are two different things. Actually, I don't know that I agree with the notion of having set rules for spell books.

And yet by the BECMI rules, those tables were being printed on the character sheet because TSR realized how silly it was for the players not to have access to that information.
And what purpose did it serve to have that if the player didn't know the AC of the opponent? None; it would be a waste of paper since the player can do nothing with the information.

I don't know which character sheets you are thinking of; are you sure that you're not mis-remembering the sheets which had an entry for the Weapons Vs armour charts?


What information, exactly, would you leave in the PHB and why would you leave it there?
That's been covered multiple times in this thread.


Was it also a mistake to move the rules for falling damage from the PHB to the DMG?
No.

[turkishproverb]

You guys should really DM Paranoia. It'd almost keep enough info away from the player to make you happy. :smallwink:

[hamlet]

Uh... No. They didn't. I can see how you might be fooled by the fact that they wrote a whole bunch of words while quoting the question. But since none of those words actually answered the question, they didn't actually answer the question.

Well, I can see this is pretty much pointless.



You're actually trying to claim that PC wizards in 2nd Edition didn't have spell books?


No, I did not say that wizards didn't have spell books and it is dishonest to say that I did.

I did say that players don't need access to hard and fast rules about spell books at their fingertips. They only need access to the information about their spellbook which is provided by the DM at character creation, or at the time when the construct or purchase a new book.




And yet by the BECMI rules, those tables were being printed on the character sheet because TSR realized how silly it was for the players not to have access to that information.


Don't recall any BECMI character sheets in the first place let alone ones with the to-hit charts printed up on them. But as Nagora noted, that information was virtually useless to a player since the procedure was not to roll and anounce what armor class you hit, but roll and anounce that you had rolled a "16" and did that hit.



What information, exactly, would you leave in the PHB and why would you leave it there?


Are you seriously asking me to re-write the AD&D PHB for you here and now when I've already said above what information I would leave in the PHB?

Fine. For the record: I would leave in the PHB any information fundamental to the basic operation of the character. This includes XP values, HD types and progression, spells per day charts, basic combat procedures, spell descriptions, and a weapon charts. Players of AD&D do not need to know what armor class they hit, nor need to know ahead of time what numbers on a saving throw succeed, nor how falling damage is calculated.



Was it also a mistake to move the rules for falling damage from the PHB to the DMG?


No, because as you'll note (but probably won't) I've said that such information is not crucial to the basic function of the character and is the province of the DM. Are you seriously suggesting that players should roll their own falling damage?




It's a funny stand-up routine you guys have developed here, but it's completely divorced from any semblance of reality. I particularly like when you claimed that falling damage should be accessible to the players because it was that way in the Golden Era of 1st Edition, but now in the Dark Days of 3rd and 4th Edition it shouldn't be accessible.


Maybe you could hold a discussion without insulting us? Maybe?

Probably not.



All because of what book the info is printed in.


No, because we actually understand the principle of the separation of GM and Player information. You reject that, which is fine, but it does not make our undertanding and use of the system any less valid than yours.



Have fun perpetuating your weird fetishization of the rulebooks while feeling some sort of warped "empowerment" over your ability to "control" your players' access to information. Gazing through rose-colored glasses while deluding yourselves over the reality of 1st Edition is also a nice touch.

Ciao.

Again with the insult, and this time a petty sexual one at that.

I'd also ask you what rose colored glasses.




You guys should really DM Paranoia. It'd almost keep enough info away from the player to make you happy.

It's an amusing game, but not one I'd run long term as it is certainly not what I look for in a long term campaign.

And, I'll ask again that you see that I have NEVER advocated keeping information away from players.

NEVER

Please stop saying that I did.

[only1doug]

Have you ever considered that Monopoly can be a role playing game?

No. I wouldn't call that roleplaying.



I no longer call Monotony Monopoly a game.

Edit oops, misspelled that there... or did i?

[Ulzgoroth]

No, because we actually understand the principle of the separation of GM and Player information. You reject that, which is fine, but it does not make our undertanding and use of the system any less valid than yours.

It's an amusing game, but not one I'd run long term as it is certainly not what I look for in a long term campaign.

And, I'll ask again that you see that I have NEVER advocated keeping information away from players.

NEVER

Please stop saying that I did.
So, I'm pretty sure these two bits of text make more sense together than it looks like at first glance. But...no, they can't both be true as written.

Separation of GM and player information, by whatever divisions you use, necessarily includes keeping information away from players (unless your separation keeps it away from the GM instead, which I find unlikely).

I also don't understand the principle of separation of GM and player information, except where that information must be obtained through observation (not necessarily feasible, for things like an NPC's thoughts) and knowledge checks.

[nagora]

So, I'm pretty sure these two bits of text make more sense together than it looks like at first glance. But...no, they can't both be true as written.
There's a difference between telling players not to read the DMG and not to read it while playing, and still moreso to tell them not to read it during play with the intent of overruling the DM.

And, if the DM is good, there's no point in a player reading the DMG since any deviations will be intentional. Ask for clarification if the unexpected happened, sure, but if the DM says s/he means X it's of no use to the player to insist that the DMG says Y, so what's the point of them having it open?

But all this has been covered in the thread.

[Knaight]

Most people need time to create well thought out characters, histories, geographies, etc. I'm sure someone out there can do it ALL off the cuff, but i doubt even the people who think they're winging it have truly done no preparation in terms of world/character building.

Yes, but you don't need to write it down. Most people who wing it think about this stuff between games, and its nice to have some time between games to think and come up with stuff, but you don't need to sit down and prepare on paper for hours, and that doesn't magically make your game better either. That and most people can develop NPCs in conversation logically.

[Raum]

I can't. It actually takes me quite some time, which I always thought was because I was adding a lot of depth and detail to them. Maybe I've been doing it wrong this whole time?Why must you characterize it a "right or wrong"? Do you really believe there is only "one true way" of GMing?


Simple logic, I suppose. If I have 1 minute to create an NPC, I'm not going to be able to develop as much about that character's personality, history, perceptions, etc, as compared to when I have 4 hours. Are you also taking four hours of game time to present your character to the PCs? If not, did you really need to spend all that time on facets the PCs don't learn about? Have you left any areas for the NPC to grow in? Or is she completely static once created? Do you really mean to tell me you spend four hours preparing each NPC? That's a full work week just to create ten...


This would fall under the category of NPCs the players are unlikely to strike up long conversations with. I've yet to find a PC who grills Random Merchant A about where he grew up, what his hobbies are, etc.You've really never been surprised by what the players choose to do?


Once again, simple logic. Having enough time to flesh an NPC out means creating a background. Where did this character come from? Which city? Did they like it there? Why did they leave? Are their parents alive? Do they have any brothers or sisters? Did they like them?How much of this do the PCs learn the first time they meet an NPC? The second? How about the tenth?


Everyone has fun with a different level of RP. Some people like to say "So what's your name? Nice to meet you. Where can I kill some monsters and take their stuff?"

Others like really in-depth character development and very detailed NPCs. Absolutely true...and completely beside the point.


If you prefer in-depth character development and detailed NPCs, I would state as a matter of fact that you can't RP them with no preperation.I wish I had the same kind of free time you do.

----------
This is all extraneous to the original point though...whether you spend forty hours a week preparing or only one has little to do with rule transparency. I have yet to see arguments on why transparency may be detrimental. Most of the arguments against transparency seem to boil down to "they don't deserve it" or they shouldn't know it" - I'd really like to see a reasoned argument as to why not.

[turkishproverb]

Yes, but you don't need to write it down. Most people who wing it think about this stuff between games, and its nice to have some time between games to think and come up with stuff, but you don't need to sit down and prepare on paper for hours, and that doesn't magically make your game better either. That and most people can develop NPCs in conversation logically.

Yea, but even if your NOT writing it down, your still preparing. And I'm willing to bet a well thought out setting requires many HOURS of thought for most people. Writing it down just makes things easier.

[Knaight]

Yes, but its not actively preparing. Its just that stuff comes to mind, and you come up with ideas when reading, or seeing life, etc. Its totally passive.

[turkishproverb]

Yes, but its not actively preparing. Its just that stuff comes to mind, and you come up with ideas when reading, or seeing life, etc. Its totally passive.

Erm. Ask a writer about brainstorming and world building. Written down or not if the stuff is gaining cohesiveness its mentally "Active" and your using up your time with it.

[Knaight]

While multitasking. I'm talking about my own method here, yes your mentally active, which just means that the brain is doing stuff. Its not like I take time out of my day to prepare, it just happens, usually while doing other stuff. Hence it being passive. Basically, at least with me, its just on another channel of thought, somewhere between conscious and subconscious, and varying between them. I don't use up my time with it at all.

[Tormsskull]

Why must you characterize it a "right or wrong"? Do you really believe there is only "one true way" of GMing?


If the goal is well-developed NPCs that add a lot of RP substance to the game, and it takes me 4 hours per session to do so, and it takes you 1 minute, then I would say I am doing it wrong. It has nothing to do with "one true way".



Are you also taking four hours of game time to present your character to the PCs? If not, did you really need to spend all that time on facets the PCs don't learn about?


Yes. If you only create the front-side of an NPC, and behind them is nothing, then I wouldn't consider that a well-developed NPC. I would consider that a short bit of dialog, as I mentioned before.



Have you left any areas for the NPC to grow in? Or is she completely static once created?


Give me an example of an NPC that has no room to grow. I'm not sure how that would be possible.



How much of this do the PCs learn the first time they meet an NPC? The second? How about the tenth?


How should I know? It depends on what questions they ask, what their actions are, etc. I like to be prepared if the PCs do something that might evoke some kind of special reaction from an NPC.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please remain civil in this thread. I haven't scrubbed every inappropriate comment above because at this point, it'd be easier and more effective just to lock the thread. That said, there's an interesting issue here, so if you can all keep it friendly, I'll leave it open.

[Justin_Bacon]

{Scrubbed}

[Thrud]

{Scrubbed}


Apparently my basic concept of 'I think it is disruptive during game time for people to be flipping through the books' is too complicated.

Let try to simplify for you.

I couldn't care less what rules are in what book, as I have stated in multiple places. I just want people to pay attention to the game and be polite to the other players, and to me. This is my reason for not allowing books during game time.

IT IS A REASON. No matter what you say. Variations of my reasoning have been used by others here. Others have differing reasons. Making a blanket statement that says 'you guys' without actually specifying to whom you are speaking, however, is somewhat foolish. As it now appears that you never even bothered to read my original post when you made your blanket statement, since you are still stuck on which rules I don't want my players to have access to. Something that does not actually have any relevance to my grievance about books being used during gameplay.

[Jayabalard]

Let's take a simple example from the 2nd Edition DMGquoting 2e books isn't generally going to help you with nagora.


Explain to me what logical reason there is for the player not to know how much it costs to write a spell in their spellbook? Obviously the character would know that... so why not the guy playing the character?Because there shouldn't necessarily a set cost to write a spell based on it's level. It should be based on the spell itself.

So if you look back at what nagora actually said, he said "I don't believe in having set rules for his spell books", so it's obvious that the character is not going to know how much it's going to take to write it in his book until after he researches it so that he can write it in his book.

[nagora]

Let's take a simple example from the 2nd Edition DMG: "For the materials and their preparation, the wizard must pay 50 gp per page. Traveling spell books, which are even more compact, cost 100 gp per page."

Explain to me what logical reason there is for the player not to know how much it costs to write a spell in their spellbook? Obviously the character would know that... so why not the guy playing the character?
Perhaps the DM is not using those prices. Perhaps s/he is using a totally different system of coinage, which is quite common. Dunno. Never played 2e. But, that is information that is part of the gameworld and the player should know; I just don't think that it should be set in stone. Allowing a player to hold the printed list over the DM's head is of no value.

If the player wants to buy a new spell book, then s/he should have their character go to a shop or market and ask what they cost in that shop in that town. That just seems obvious to me.



Why do you need to know the AC of your opponent in order to know what AC you're capable of hitting with a given dice roll? By letting the player make that calculation/look-up instead of the DM, you speed up gameplay.
A tiny speed up in return for making the situation radically more out of character? No thanks!


What advantage, exactly, do you feel is to be gained by hiding these rules from the players and, thus, slowing down gameplay?
Give the pretend concern with the speed of play a rest.

The advantage of "hiding rules" is to remove distractions from the charcters' perceptions. Everytime a player thinks in rules terms instead of charcter terms the game suffers.

[Matthew]

Let's take a simple example from the 2nd Edition DMG: "For the materials and their preparation, the wizard must pay 50 gp per page. Traveling spell books, which are even more compact, cost 100 gp per page."

Explain to me what logical reason there is for the player not to know how much it costs to write a spell in their spellbook? Obviously the character would know that... so why not the guy playing the character?

In AD&D 2e, the default cost of recording a spell in a spell book is randomly determined at [(Spell Level + 1d6 - 1) x 50] GP. Recording a spell in a travelling spell book costs twice as much. As far as I can see, that is not only the cost of writing the spell, but of constructing the pages from scratch. Obviously, much like the equipment list in the PHB, these costs are not fixed.

What purpose does it serve to keep this information from the players? None that I can think of off hand, but nobody is saying that this information should be kept from the players (at least not without good reason). Should this information have been in the PHB? Apart from organisational clarity, I see no particular reason for its inclusion.



So you would separate the information, but you wouldn't keep it from the players? What purpose does the separation serve, then?

(Hint: Repeating your claim that you only keep the information away from the players while you're playing the game means that you are, in fact, keeping the information away from the players. So this really just boils down to a question of: When, exactly, were you lying?)

There is a difference between keeping the book from the players and keeping the information from them.



Why do you need to know the AC of your opponent in order to know what AC you're capable of hitting with a given dice roll? By letting the player make that calculation/look-up instead of the DM, you speed up gameplay.

What advantage, exactly, do you feel is to be gained by hiding these rules from the players and, thus, slowing down gameplay?

I don't even agree that this will necessarily speed up play.

[Knaight]

The advantage of "hiding rules" is to remove distractions from the charcters' perceptions. Everytime a player thinks in rules terms instead of charcter terms the game suffers.
Exactly. That and they really aren't needed to describe the world, all thats needed is a good description.

[hamlet]

{Scrubbed}

[Matthew]

The information that does not directly govern the basic function of a PC - including but not limited to world information, optional rules for the GM's decision about implementation, magic item information, to-hit charts, and information such as the crafting of magic items and spell books - are not needed for the players during play. They simply do not require it and so, in the interest of keeping the game's momentum and progress, I ask my players to not access that information during play.

Out of interest, if a player inquires about the contents of the DMG, such as how much does it cost in the book to copy a spell into a spell book, would you decline to answer the question or tell them the answer?

[hamlet]

Out of interest, if a player inquires about the contents of the DMG, such as how much does it cost in the book to copy a spell into a spell book, would you decline to answer the question or tell them the answer?

I would, of course, tell them the answer which may or may not coincide with the printed information in the DMG.

This is, of course, within reason and I almost always try to give such information in character rather than in rules if possible.

[Matthew]

I would, of course, tell them the answer which may or may not coincide with the printed information in the DMG.

This is, of course, within reason and I almost always try to give such information in character rather than in rules if possible.

Sure, that would be the answer for the purpose of the session, but I was meaning would you accurately relate the rule in the book (given that you recall it) if the player (rather than than the character or player character) asked what it was?

For my part, I have no problem discussing the rules in the books if the player wants to know the answer, even though I see no practical use for such information if in play the information is at variance. I might discourage a discussion of that rule or numerous questions if it interfered with the session, though.

[hamlet]

Sure, that would be the answer for the purpose of the session, but I was meaning would you accurately relate the rule in the book (given that you recall it) if the player (rather than than the character or player character) asked what it was?

For my part, I have no problem discussing the rules in the books if the player wants to know the answer, even though I see no practical use for such information if in play the information is at variance. I might discourage a discussion of that rule or numerous questions if it interfered with the session, though.

It depends entirely on the question.

When a player asks me about a specific rule or a specific tidbit of information within the DMG, my first response is always "why are you asking?". I often find that when I'm asked these questions during play, it's not a matter of any relevance to what's happening in the game at that moment and is, more often than not, a player's mind wandering off the character and the situation and onto other topics. To me, its a warning sign that I may have to re-engage that player to bring them back to the game.

Of course, there are times when they ask a pertinent question that I simply had not considered or expected to come up and, if I feel that the answer is not going to break the moment, I'll provide the information or, if need be, look it up or just wing an answer based on how I feel it should be.

It's like I said before, I don't hide the content of that book (or even the MM) from the players so much as I attempt to remove it from their attention during play when they should be focusing on the character and the action rather than the rules.

If I decide that the answer isn't worth delving into at that precise moment, or is a matter of a player's attention wandering, or, worse yet, is an attempt by a player to distract me and either gain time for themselves or break the momentum of what's going on, then my reply will be "let's talk about that after the session."

[nagora]

Out of interest, if a player inquires about the contents of the DMG, such as how much does it cost in the book to copy a spell into a spell book, would you decline to answer the question or tell them the answer?
I'd tell them the average answer (not any random variable) and tack on the fact that the actual price is likely to be anything from half to ten times the listed average price depending on location and availability of materials.

The more commonplace an item is, the less likely it is that I'll vary the price, but I will often remove the availablity at any price. For example, characters in a village may be simply unable to buy a longsword-or any sword, while those in a city may struggle to find some of the less sophisticated polearms.

I agree with Hamlet that rules questions are often a warning that I'm not DMing well and need to reengage the players with the characters' world.

[RobertFisher]

Don't recall any BECMI character sheets in the first place let alone ones with the to-hit charts printed up on them. But as Nagora noted, that information was virtually useless to a player since the procedure was not to roll and anounce what armor class you hit, but roll and anounce that you had rolled a "16" and did that hit.

Having run B/X D&D just last year, we used such character sheets. An example of which is on p. B14. I did have the players tell me what AC they hit. That character sheet also has space for them to write in their saving throws.

But that’s completely beside the point.

In fact, I think this most of this discussion is beside the point.

Yeah, we have the tradition in my group that the DMG and MM are off-limits to players while playing. If a DM feels he has to enforce this or if the players feel they need to reference those books to argue with or protect themselves from the DM, then I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that this may be a symptom of a more fundamental problem in the group.

[Matthew]

Yeah, we have the tradition in my group that the DMG and MM are off-limits to players while playing. If a DM feels he has to enforce this or if the players feel they need to reference those books to argue with or protect themselves from the DM, then I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that this may be a symptom of a more fundamental problem in the group.

Ordinarily, that would also be my reaction, but it seems that this adverserial form of play is not regarded by everyone as a problem. Indeed, the idea that you need to be protected from the game master seems to be a fundamental assumption of some of the discussion here. It is very much a result of the promotion of "rules mastery", a subtext in the D20 core books that I was not until recently strongly aware of.

[Charity]

Do you think adversorial play stems from DM's whom would rather be players getting forced into the role by circumstance?
I just wonder if it is resentful feelings that breed the conflict, it has to stem from the DM I figure.
Displacement activity?
I have encountered a strange sort of adversorial DM before, he would batter your characters, take all your stuff, but leave you alive ... in fact he would never kill you, everything would kick your arse then leave you to recover, that had to be some of the leanist gaming months of my life to put up with that crap. That guy was just power tripping without the bottle to see it through, he was gagging to run the game.

[Matthew]

Do you think adversorial play stems from DM's whom would rather be players getting forced into the role by circumstance?
I just wonder if it is resentful feelings that breed the conflict, it has to stem from the DM I figure.
Displacement activity?

Probably a lot of different causes, that one seems possible; for instance, a "DMPC" could be a symptom of a game master who would rather be a player, or it could be that he cannot reconcile his desire to be a player with his preference for control of the game environment. (I know you would rather be a player, Charity!)

As Thrud astutely observed in a different thread, a lot of "rules mastery" may be about desire for control over the game environment.



I have encountered a strange sort of adversorial DM before, he would batter your characters, take all your stuff, but leave you alive ... in fact he would never kill you, everything would kick your arse then leave you to recover, that had to be some of the leanist gaming months of my life to put up with that crap. That guy was just power tripping without the bottle to see it through, he was gagging to run the game.

Also known as a "bad DM". If he had followed through, he'd be known as a "killer DM". :smallbiggrin:

Unless he just had a problem with judging encounter strength (Oops!), and assuming you guys didn't suck... then that sounds like he was using the party as his own personal vicarious punching bag.

[Charity]

The guy was just plain old bad DM, railroad plots series of events, inability to divorce himself from the npc's, so they all had omnicience, and omnipotence if called out... ah he really was a piece of work...

Anyhow, I may be a shabby DM, but I'm very rarely adversorial... though at the moment my campaign (though the word rather glorifies the reading it out of a book that I am actually doing) is winding down somewhat, with everyone keen to get into 4e, but no-one wanting to leave it half way through. The fights have been getting more and more hardcore, I did maul a character with a dragon the other week.

Oh you didn't miss much at Gencon btw it was a bit of a disappointment, on the RPG side of things, though we did play some good boardgames, and even got to playtest one for some guy... he picked the right crowd for that... it was actually pretty good ... anyway I appear to be even futher from topic than normal so I'll shut up.

[AKA_Bait]

The advantage of "hiding rules" is to remove distractions from the charcters' perceptions. Everytime a player thinks in rules terms instead of charcter terms the game suffers.

I disagree here, but mostly because this is such a wide generalization. Come on Nagora, everytime?


Agreed, though I quibble with the "hiding rules" term. It's not hiding the rules so much as removing them from the concern of the players during the duration of the session.

Et tu Hamlet?

Sometimes it does help play for a PC to think in terms of rules and the game does not suffer. A PC out shopping is going to make a decision on whether to buy that +1 item because of the bonus and how it is described in game (unless there are specific keywords to indicate pluses and magical properties, which is practically speaking the same) is pretty much required for the player to make an informed decision. The game does not suffer from allowing players to make informed decisions when appropriate.


Indeed, the idea that you need to be protected from the game master seems to be a fundamental assumption of some of the discussion here.

Humm... I haven't noticed much of that. At least, not with that implication. I've certianly argued (perhaps not here) that sometimes the DM is wrong and a quick "it actually works this way" is good so long as it's not put in an adversarial manner. I don't see that as the same as saying that the players need to be protected from the DM, or vice versa (in the case of keeping books from the players so they can't argue). I'd call what I support collegial, rather than adversarial.

Also, Matthew, an avatar? ::checks for birds falling out of the sky::

[Charity]

Sometimes it does help play for a PC to think in terms of rules and the game does not suffer. A PC out shopping is going to make a decision on whether to buy that +1 item because of the bonus and how it is described in game (unless there are specific keywords to indicate pluses and magical properties, which is practically speaking the same) is pretty much required for the player to make an informed decision. The game does not suffer from allowing players to make informed decisions when appropriate.
I have to agree, trying to describe the amount of magicalness required is a farcical in character conversation.
"I'd like it a bit more magical than the one I had before, but not so magical I can no longer afford it"


Also, Matthew, an avatar? ::checks for birds falling out of the sky::
Ah he has recycled that from elsewhere, soon all the shards of Matt will me combined and then... well just prey you are taken out in the initial blast.

[Matthew]

The guy was just plain old bad DM, railroad plots series of events, inability to divorce himself from the npc's, so they all had omnicience, and omnipotence if called out... ah he really was a piece of work...

Sounds like the stereotype. I wonder if he wanders from town to town spreading discord and distrust amongst gamers everywhere?



Anyhow, I may be a shabby DM, but I'm very rarely adversorial... though at the moment my campaign (though the word rather glorifies the reading it out of a book that I am actually doing) is winding down somewhat, with everyone keen to get into 4e, but no-one wanting to leave it half way through. The fights have been getting more and more hardcore, I did maul a character with a dragon the other week.

That is the sign of a good game master. Impartial as to success or failure, just running the game.



Oh you didn't miss much at Gencon btw it was a bit of a disappointment, on the RPG side of things, though we did play some good boardgames, and even got to playtest one for some guy... he picked the right crowd for that... it was actually pretty good ... anyway I appear to be even futher from topic than normal so I'll shut up.

I still would have liked to go, which reminds me... work.



Humm... I haven't noticed much of that. At least, not with that implication. I've certianly argued (perhaps not here) that sometimes the DM is wrong and a quick "it actually works this way" is good so long as it's not put in an adversarial manner. I don't see that as the same as saying that the players need to be protected from the DM, or vice versa (in the case of keeping books from the players so they can't argue). I'd call what I support collegial, rather than adversarial.

Hey, I said "some", I was purposefully ambiguous (as this thread has gotten too long). Players knowing the rules as a (welcome) aid to the game master are potentially good for the game.



Also, Matthew, an avatar? ::checks for birds falling out of the sky::

Yeah, until the other day this was the only forum I frequented that I didn't use this avatar at... seemed kind of out of place with all the stick characters. I am giving him a trial run.



Ah he has recycled that from elsewhere, soon all the shards of Matt will me combined and then... well just prey you are taken out in the initial blast.
Ancient prophecies and hokey religions are no match for... I've said too much (and I have referenced, or rather paraphrased, Star Wars. Is there no extreme to which I will not go?).

[Charity]

Sounds like the stereotype. I wonder if he wanders from town to town spreading discord and distrust amongst gamers everywhere?

It is possible, he don't live round here no more... to further perpetuate the steriotype he also had the worst complexion of anyone I've ever met.



That is the sign of a good game master. Impartial as to success or failure, just running the game.
I'm hokey at best I assure you, many a character has fallen to my incompetance.


I still would have liked to go, which reminds me... work.

We had a good time don't get me wrong, but we'd find fun wherever we went to be honest, heck even ordering lunch down the local was a laugh.


Ancient prophecies and hokey religions are no match for... I've said too much (and I have referenced, or rather paraphrased, Star Wars. Is there no extreme to which I will not go?).
Plumb all the depths, thats the only way to be sure... at least thats what I always say.

[nagora]

I disagree here, but mostly because this is such a wide generalization. Come on Nagora, everytime?
I think so. I can't think of a case where it would not be preferable to have the player talk and think in character terms.

But, in reality it's unavoidable that it happens; I just think we (players and DMs) should at least aim to minimise it.

Your +1 item is a good example of something I would avoid at all costs; I never reveal pluses on magic weapons until a character has had some use with it. At that point, it is usually more hassle than it's worth to me to keep the information hidden, although I know DMs who do, and I do have one group who are so rule-averse that I keep such information from them simply because they don't want to hear anything about rules like that - they think that's my job. They are very casual gamers, though.

[AKA_Bait]

Your +1 item is a good example of something I would avoid at all costs; I never reveal pluses on magic weapons until a character has had some use with it.

Fair enough, I suppose. I would not want to play in a game with a DM with that mindset though. I expect that my characters are going to have an idea of the value of what they are buying before they buy it, either through the appraise skill (to get a ballpark value of the item, which translates roughly into power/plus), bardic knowledge, or one of the many other ways that PC's can recognize magical stuff for what it is. I know not all players and groups feel that way.

[Tormsskull]

Your +1 item is a good example of something I would avoid at all costs; I never reveal pluses on magic weapons until a character has had some use with it.

I'm the same way. I think that was part of the old school rules. Its also why I hate magi-mart settings.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm the same way. I think that was part of the old school rules. Its also why I hate magi-mart settings.

You don't need a magi-mart setting for this to matter. I don't run one. You just need someone, someplace, to be selling or trading a magic weapon. Heck, you don't even need that, you just need a party to have 2 longswords (say) at the same time and need to choose between them which the fighter should use. I would expect that between a master of the arcane and an expert in stabbing people with pointy bits, they should be able to figure out which longsword is better much of the time without actually need to stab a goblin in the face first.

[Tormsskull]

You don't need a magi-mart setting for this to matter.

Gotta stop you there. It was two separate thoughts.

Thought #1: I'm the same way. I think that was part of the old school rules.
Thought #2: Its also why I hate magi-mart settings.

I don't like to just tell a character when they see a sword in a pile of treasure that it is a Sword +2. I don't think weapons come with tags that indicate their ability. In order to determine how magical an item is, a character usually has to cast some kind of identifying spell, or get some experience in using the item.


I don't like magi-mart settings because this is hard to do in such a setting. When you go into the store and look through the magic item catalog, its hard to have players shop without using the mechanical terms for the items, which I don't like.

[nagora]

Fair enough, I suppose. I would not want to play in a game with a DM with that mindset though. I expect that my characters are going to have an idea of the value of what they are buying before they buy it, either through the appraise skill (to get a ballpark value of the item, which translates roughly into power/plus), bardic knowledge, or one of the many other ways that PC's can recognize magical stuff for what it is. I know not all players and groups feel that way.
I dislike allowing magic to be so common that it can be bought at "list prices", but I do allow characters to gain some impression of the power of the magic in an item by the methods you suggest.

Allowing detection of magic via price labels seems a bit weak to me.

[hamlet]

Et tu Hamlet?

Sometimes it does help play for a PC to think in terms of rules and the game does not suffer. A PC out shopping is going to make a decision on whether to buy that +1 item because of the bonus and how it is described in game (unless there are specific keywords to indicate pluses and magical properties, which is practically speaking the same) is pretty much required for the player to make an informed decision. The game does not suffer from allowing players to make informed decisions when appropriate.
::

Yes, sometimes having the rules does help, which is why I encourage players to be familiar enough with the DMG during off game time to understand the "behind the curtain" workings of things.

But at the same time, I find that having players think in terms of rules is a game breaker, especially if you have somebody at the table that will use said rules to "get their own way." I've had too many of those to count.

At the same time, it's dangerous becasue there are those players out there who will hold the written word of the DMG over the spoken word of the DM. They, in effect, demote the DM and invest fuller authority into the book rather than the man/woman running the game.

And, on top of all of that, I want my players to be thinking in terms of character and not rules as it really helps to improve the game. Determining whether or not to do something based on what their character would do rather than based on what is most optimal based on the rules, or, worse still, demanding that the game world adhere to the rules rather than the rules adhere to the world.


Matthew: Your comments about players who feel the need to be protected from the DM are, I feel, part of a larger shift in paradigm within the D&D game and community that I've had a very hard time putting into coherent thought. It's my belief that the very basic fundamental assumptions of the game have changed dramatically and that we've not really noticed because many of the trappings remain the same.

It's a topic for another thread, but one I hesitate to start for any number of reasons.

[arguskos]

I don't like to just tell a character when they see a sword in a pile of treasure that it is a Sword +2. I don't think weapons come with tags that indicate their ability. In order to determine how magical an item is, a character usually has to cast some kind of identifying spell, or get some experience in using the item.

I don't like magi-mart settings because this is hard to do in such a setting. When you go into the store and look through the magic item catalog, its hard to have players shop without using the mechanical terms for the items, which I don't like.
Forgive the interruption, but this caught my eye.

See, I just started a new campaign on Sunday, and I included a magic shop. However, I don't tell my players crap about what is IN the magic shop, merely that the detect magic spell nearly blinds them from magical auras if they cast it indoors. I use a random chance method of deciding what they find each time they go inside, and scrub the whole, "Just open the DMG and find something, mmkay?" method, which I find silly and stupid.

I figure that if magic shops existed, they'd not work in the whole, "price it out, put a tag on it, sell it" method. Magic is rare and special, not wholesale and common. To this end, I also altered my game so that standard item creation doesn't apply (I'd share my system, but it's complex and not quite done yet; more suited to Homebrew anyway), all to keep magic special and unique.

I'll admit it's a challenge, and that it's also a matter of taste, but I think there exists a common ground for magic shops and mechanical ambiguity, which is what you seem to be wanting.

-argus

[Tormsskull]

Matthew: Your comments about players who feel the need to be protected from the DM are, I feel, part of a larger shift in paradigm within the D&D game and community that I've had a very hard time putting into coherent thought.

Yeah, I have been saying this for a long time too. It is a completely different type of game than I am used to playing.



Magic is rare and special, not wholesale and common.


I agree, but 3e and 4e really don't.



(I'd share my system, but it's complex and not quite done yet; more suited to Homebrew anyway), all to keep magic special and unique.


If you get to the point where you want a critique let me know, it would definitely be something I am interested in.

[arguskos]

Yeah, I have been saying this for a long time too. It is a completely different type of game than I am used to playing.

I agree, but 3e and 4e really don't.

If you get to the point where you want a critique let me know, it would definitely be something I am interested in.
In order...

1. I agree with you and hamlet, though I'm barely old enough to remember my days of playing AD&D, much less OD&D. I'm very much an anachronistic fellow it seems. I'd be very interested in a thread talking about how player perceptions in D&D have changed as the game has evolved over the years.

2. I know that neither 3e nor 4e really support this idea, but I do maintain that they are good systems, both well worth the effort to houserule like I am, so that the systems interpretations of magic items makes some more sense (none of this magi-mart crap).

3. Concerning my home system, I'll send you an overview via PM. Mind that it's hardly done. :smallwink:

I still think it is relevant though that a common ground must surely exist in D&D, between magic as rare/special, and magic as common/vital. I think the answer may lie in what hamlet noted, as player perceptions shifting. Perhaps it is not the system that has changed so much as the players have?

-argus

[hamlet]

Yeah, I have been saying this for a long time too. It is a completely different type of game than I am used to playing.


I agree with you, and would love to have that discussion, but can't honestly think of a way to start it here without it being akin to throwing a lit blowtorch into a pool of guncotton.

[Matthew]

I know a way, and apparently I love filling the front page of the forum with threads started by me when I should in fact be working... :smallbiggrin:

[hamlet]

I know a way, and apparently I love filling the front page of the forum with threads started by me when I should in fact be working... :smallbiggrin:

What is this "work" you speak of?

If it is this place that I spend 70 hours per week while trying to cure stupidity, then I think I do not like it.

[Charity]

He has a thesis to write..

*whip crack*

[AKA_Bait]

But at the same time, I find that having players think in terms of rules is a game breaker, especially if you have somebody at the table that will use said rules to "get their own way." I've had too many of those to count.

Well, I'd say the issue with a player using the rules to "get their own way" is more an issue with the player than the access to the book. But then, I've said that over and over already.


At the same time, it's dangerous becasue there are those players out there who will hold the written word of the DMG over the spoken word of the DM. They, in effect, demote the DM and invest fuller authority into the book rather than the man/woman running the game.

There are some DM's who do this too. In other groups, like mine, there is an interplay between the two with the DM ultimatley having the final word over the book but generally speaking defering to it unless he has a specific reason not to.


And, on top of all of that, I want my players to be thinking in terms of character and not rules as it really helps to improve the game. Determining whether or not to do something based on what their character would do rather than based on what is most optimal based on the rules, or, worse still, demanding that the game world adhere to the rules rather than the rules adhere to the world.

These two are not mutually inclusive though. A player can be fully aware of all the options mechanically available to their PC, but being in character ignore ones that their PC either would not do, would not know about, or wouldn't really even think about doing even though they might in theory know the option exists.


It's a topic for another thread, but one I hesitate to start for any number of reasons.

I'm still hoping that you will though, because I'm honestly at a loss as to what those changed fundimental assumptions are.

[Justin_Bacon]

{Scrubbed}

[AKA_Bait]

And it also begs the question of why you allow the players to have copies of the PHB at the table.

Perhaps, as explained, it's because he can ban the DMG from the table without making the game pretty much impossible to play on the playerside of things but cannot do so with the PHB? So, he stuck with a situation (PHB) that's not ideal and has to make do?

Look, I don't play the way they do, but their position isn't contradictory. Not being able to ban an entire book for practical reasons doesn't mean that if you could wouldn't remove parts of that book for theoretical reasons if you could.

[hamlet]

{Scrubbed}

Yeah, you know what? Not gonna bother talking to you anymore.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please remain civil in this thread. I haven't scrubbed every inappropriate comment above because at this point, it'd be easier and more effective just to lock the thread. That said, there's an interesting issue here, so if you can all keep it friendly, I'll leave it open.

Sheriff Redux: Perhaps this thread cannot remain civil, I don't know. But after another round of scrubbing, I'm going to reopening. Please, for the love of all you hold dear, be excellent to each other and party on dudes! civil and follow the Forum Rules.

[Thrud]

Probably a lot of different causes, that one seems possible; for instance, a "DMPC" could be a symptom of a game master who would rather be a player, or it could be that he cannot reconcile his desire to be a player with his preference for control of the game environment. (I know you would rather be a player, Charity!)

As Thrud astutely observed in a different thread, a lot of "rules mastery" may be about desire for control over the game environment.

Yeah, I've had DMs pull out DMPCs in games before. I think it is just a symptom of an inexperienced DM who is trying to control the game. Though I have had one run once by a DM who was burned out on gaming and wanted to play. And I have had it happen in games where there are just not enough players and the party needs a PC for balance.



Also known as a "bad DM". If he had followed through, he'd be known as a "killer DM". :smallbiggrin:

Unless he just had a problem with judging encounter strength (Oops!), and assuming you guys didn't suck... then that sounds like he was using the party as his own personal vicarious punching bag.

Hmm, yeah, that one would suck. Never come accross that particular variant of bad DM before.

But anyway, the previous point is interesting. Is a DMPC always a bad thing? And what can you do to prevent NPCs from turning into DMPCs? Hmm, that might be worth starting up a new thread. What do you think?

[Xenogears]

In every single game I have played in the DM was also a PC. It never was a problem. In fact most of the time he was getting annoyed because I was a power-player and he wasn't (nothing extreme. Just getting a 10-20 Crit range). It also didn't help anything that we always stopped around 8th level and he was always a caster.

Either way it always turned out fine having the DM play a character as well (we were usually just the two of us playing). They were fun campaigns although they weren't plot driven so that might be part of the reason the DM didn't seem unfair having a PC as well.

[Matthew]

But anyway, the previous point is interesting. Is a DMPC always a bad thing? And what can you do to prevent NPCs from turning into DMPCs? Hmm, that might be worth starting up a new thread. What do you think?
The old NPC versus DMPC debate. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, it is an interesting distinction. I suppose they could be described as an undesirable subset of NPCs, with the NPC adventuring companion being the "good version". I remember a thread on this subject a couple of years back. Maybe I can dig it up via the forum search engine.

[Thrud]

The old NPC versus DMPC debate. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, it is an interesting distinction. I suppose they could be described as an undesirable subset of NPCs, with the NPC adventuring companion being the "good version". I remember a thread on this subject a couple of years back. Maybe I can dig it up via the forum search engine.

I remember this terrible game (modern day setting) where the DM decided that we were all going to be military, gave us all noncom ranks, and gave us orders to head out and deal with some sort of problem. Can't even remember what it was now, because I have tried to put it all out of my memory. But anyway, he also decided to send officers with us. A group of them to be specific. 4 PCs, and 4 NPC officers, all of whom outranked us so we had to do whatever they told us to do, and all of whom were better than us in every respect. It was truly a horrible game, because it was simply the 'sit back and let the DMs characters solve every problem' game. It ended after the second session when we discovered that apparently the game was always going to be that way. (We gave him the benefit of the doubt after the first one, hoping that the officers would all be killed off, or something)

That is obviously the bad end of the DMPC scale. However, I have had to run NPCs before who stay with the characters long enough that they have real distinct personalities and backgrounds to the point that they feel more like a party member in their interactions. I would like to think that I never misused these NPCs in any way that would influence the game, but I can't really be certain.

So yeah, I would be interested to see a thread like that, or just to start up a new one if it is dead so long that it cannot be brought back.

[Matthew]

Sounds horrible. A quick search uncovered this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/search.php?searchid=488746), but nothing recent or in depth about the use of the term. Might as well start a new thread up and see if there is any interest.

[Mando Knight]

But anyway, he also decided to send officers with us. A group of them to be specific. 4 PCs, and 4 NPC officers, all of whom outranked us so we had to do whatever they told us to do, and all of whom were better than us in every respect.

Who sends in one officer per NCO? That's like... a cop for each citizen... or a teacher for each student... or antivirus on a calculator... or the Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) to kill a housefly. Management and security are great, right? Yet someone is clearly doing their job horribly wrong. (http://xkcd.com/463/)

[Thrud]

Who sends in one officer per NCO? That's like... a cop for each citizen... or a teacher for each student... or antivirus on a calculator... or the Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) to kill a housefly. Management and security are great, right? Yet someone is clearly doing their job horribly wrong. (http://xkcd.com/463/)

Yeah. That's what we said. And that is why we game him a second game session, 'coz we figured there had to be some sort of ulterior motive involved. When after a second game session there still wasn't, we left in a hurry.