PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

celestialkin
2008-08-25, 10:59 AM
You all gave me some much appreciated help earlier, but this came to my mind and I just needed to ask it.

Had a few more instances my last gaming session where I stated somethings (things I knew were not exactly as described in the DMG, which I tried strongly to hint at) and instantly the players (one in particular) immediately went to pull out their/his DMG to quote and argue with me.

I implemented the 60 second sand timer rule at the start of the game, which helped somewhat, but now I feel like I should cut things off at the source.

I now want to contact all my players and tell them that on the days I will be running to leave their DMGs and MMs at home, or to hand them to me at the very start of our gaming sessions if they must bring them.

Before I do any of this I thought I should ask others' opinions on this. Please tell me your opinions and suggestions about this. If you can, please list whether the thoughts you are stating are from a DM prospective or a Player prospective.


As always, thank you all in advance for any help you might give me.

nagora
2008-08-25, 11:01 AM
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.

Yakk
2008-08-25, 11:07 AM
You could steal a page from some narritive games, and have a system whereby when you house-rule around something, and the players notice, they get a small amount of narritive power later on.

Done right, this can exist completely outside of the game-session itself, with someone tossing a chit into a basket indicating they caught you making up a new house-rule, and then discussing it afterwards. Each new house-rule a player catches you produce gives them the ability to introduce a minor plot point to the campaign, done out-of-session ... or something similar and fun (a nerf gun shot at the DM?).

celestialkin
2008-08-25, 11:09 AM
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.

Thank you. That is all I needed.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-25, 11:14 AM
Yakk's suggestion could work, or, the next time a player wants to argue with you, simply state, "We're going to do it my way for right now. Talk to me later and we'll see what the problem is."

Or perhaps, whenever a player calls you out on a difference from the DMG or something, simply state a worse alternative that's completely raw legal. "Ok, you're right, the Dragon can't cast cure critical wounds on himself. Instead, he takes picks up a nasty-looking [magic item] from his horde and turns it on the party..." I use this one every now and then. It shuts them up every time, I promise.

JackMage666
2008-08-25, 11:14 AM
Everytime they take out the Dungeon Master Guide, yell "Are YOU the Dungeon Master!" and glare. Hard.

Similarly, make them purchase a Monster Manual in game. If they can't find it (which they likely can't as you can rule that they can't), they can't use it. Suddenly, it becomes a prop!

Another way around the MM thing is to use the MM2-5, Fiend Folio, or some 3rd party books. Players are less likely to cart those around.

Chronos
2008-08-25, 11:16 AM
You could steal a page from some narritive games, and have a system whereby when you house-rule around something, and the players notice, they get a small amount of narritive power later on.This would have exactly the opposite effect as is desired. You're going out of your way to reward encyclopedic knowledge of the rules by the players, when the OP's problem is that he doesn't want the players knowing the DM-only rules.

The one problem I can see with banning player use of the DMG is if some of the players are using PrCs from there. A player needs to have full access to the class rules for his own character.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-25, 11:16 AM
Another way around the MM thing is to use the MM2-5, Fiend Folio, or some 3rd party books. Players are less likely to cart those around.

Oooh, yes. I forgot about this one. Wierd and homebrewed monsters tend to freak players out a lot more. Few things are creepier than a joystealer. "So you were talking to this elf, and now - it's eating your personality!"

nagora
2008-08-25, 11:19 AM
A couple of other points:

1) The content of the Players Handbook is effectively a contract between the DM and the players in a way that the DMG (or MM) is not. If you overrule the PHB, you need to let the players know well in advance or allow them "take backs".

2) You also have an obligation to be consistant. If you have ruled on something, even from the DMG, and later want to rule another way on the same issue then likewise you need to let the players know what's going on and probably why as well. But you only need to be consistant with yourself, not the DMG.

kamikasei
2008-08-25, 11:22 AM
It doesn't sound like the problem is access to the DMG, but an unwillingness to let the DM run things with a bit of flexibility. What sort of changes are you talking about? Stuff like "I've changed how grappling works" is the sort of houserule players need to know about up-front, but doesn't really bear on the DMG. Stuff like "this pit trap has a higher-than-normal reflex save" is nothing the players should be complaining about (now, I'm setting aside cases where every encounter is ten times more difficult than appropriate, etc.). It doesn't particularly matter if they have their DMG with them; the issue is that they're challenging you on things that are entirely within your purview.

Honestly, I'd be insulted if a DM asked me to leave my DMG behind, or hand it over to him for the session. There's not much reason for a player to have a copy at a session, but actually physically taking it away sends the message that you don't trust him with it. Exhaust alternatives first. (Try just telling the players, "hey guys, I will be running monsters with altered stats and I will be deviating from the guidelines for encounter-building. I'm not trying to kill your characters unfairly, I'm just tweaking things to make the game run better. Please, just trust me and roll with it.")

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-25, 11:23 AM
No biggie mostly a player knowledge versus PC knowledge issue there is a really bad DM or trust issue.

The DM does have a copy of the PC character sheet and gear correct?

Yakk
2008-08-25, 11:25 AM
This would have exactly the opposite effect as is desired. You're going out of your way to reward encyclopedic knowledge of the rules by the players, when the OP's problem is that he doesn't want the players knowing the DM-only rules.
The players know the DM-only rules. What this does it is discourages players from attempting to override the DM's house rules, and rewards that knowledge in a different way.

As a bonus, the DM who doesn't know they are house-ruling can find out "oh, ya, that rule in the DMG is a better solution".

Arbitrarity
2008-08-25, 11:34 AM
I tend to keep my DMG during play. Our GM tends to run things roughly by RAW, except when it suits him, in which case he will clearly note that this is an abnormal situation (This magma radiates a LOT of heat). In this case, my being our general rules lawyer/encyclopedia, I'll tend to help look things up.
And I hope my character knows something about environmental hazards, or at least one of the party members does (what with the +21ish survival).

Pirate_King
2008-08-25, 11:42 AM
I just have a flail named Rule Zero. s'got spikes on it.

Shazzbaa
2008-08-25, 11:42 AM
Your players have the DMG at session? That's... strange.
(EDIT: unless you're Arbitrarity, I suppose. That makes a little more sense)

I think kamikasei brings up a valid point, that while there is no reason for players to have a DMG, it might start things off with a bad vibe if you were to demand everyone's books.

Instead, I'm going to add my vote to the idea that you let them know ahead of time that not all the monsters are going to be exactly as they appear in the MM, some items will be homebrewed, etc.... and if any player finds something you do unfair, they're free to bring it up for discussion after the session.
Then, when they inevitably disregard this and debate something, you can just raise an eyebrow, look amused, and say "Why, yes, normal dragons do work that way..." and move along. Or, you know, however you feel like handling that; but the basic idea is that when your players say "but X can't do that!" and your response is "this isn't normal X," there's not a whole lot of argument that can happen, and the DMG won't help them much.

Tormsskull
2008-08-25, 11:44 AM
Honestly, I'd be insulted if a DM asked me to leave my DMG behind, or hand it over to him for the session. There's not much reason for a player to have a copy at a session, but actually physically taking it away sends the message that you don't trust him with it. Exhaust alternatives first.


My group recently gave up 4e, no one seemed to like it much. So we all took a vote, and decided to return to 2nd Edition AD&D (more specifically the Birthright campaign setting). As I started refreshing my memory on the 2e Core books I was amazed at the differences in language between 2e to 3e or 4e.

In the 2e book it even specifically spells out that a player should not have a DMG, period. The reasoning behind this is mostly the mystery aspect of things, which is a a huge tool in the DM's arsenal. If the player's don't know all the rules, it makes the game that much better, IMO.

So, in relation to your above quote, as much of a lack of trust you would feel if the DM asked you not to bring your DMG (or to give it to him if you pulled it out), that's as much of a lack of trust as the typical DM will feel when a player questions their rulings and whips out the DMG to correct them.



(Try just telling the players, "hey guys, I will be running monsters with altered stats and I will be deviating from the guidelines for encounter-building. I'm not trying to kill your characters unfairly, I'm just tweaking things to make the game run better. Please, just trust me and roll with it.")

See, this is way too care-bear to me. When you sign on to play with a DM, you are saying you trust them to allow them all the DM powers/choices in campaign/setting/encounter creation. To have to spell it out would tell me that the initial assumption is that the DM is bound to all the rules as printed, which just isn't the case.

valadil
2008-08-25, 11:50 AM
It's always bothered me that players use the DMG. I've always felt it should be a DM only book. I blame WotC as much as the players, because they had to publish things like prestige classes and loot prices in what was otherwise DM only material.

MM should depend on the player in question. Druids should have it. Characters who can summon should have access to it. Other than that it should be limited to the GM. If you have the free time I'd advise going through it with the PCs who can summon and writing up all their possible summons on index cards. If you google around I think you can find pdfs for just that purpose (some of which include augment summoning). If your players are looking up monster stats, you've got a problem.

My personal tactic for dealing with bookworm players is to not do D&D. Instead we play Valadil's game. It's an RPG loosely inspired by D&D, and on the surface looks exactly like D&D. But it gives me even more license to stomp rules when needed. (Technically speaking it gives no more authority than rule 0, but players tend to listen to it more than rule 0 so I go with this instead.)

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-25, 11:54 AM
If it's in the DMG, players don't get to argue about application anyway. The DMG is pretty much useless to anyone who's not DMing, except for PrCs, magic items, Leadership, and so on. Like nagora said, the PHB is what they're "guaranteed" (and changing stuff there is "houseruling", which players must be notified of, and which they are definitely entitled to argue or complain about). The DMG is just guidelines for the DM, not rules.

Players with MMs to refer to at the table is definitely bad for the game.

Never had a problem like this, myself, since we always play with one set of books.


All that said, it sounds like you've got trust issues in the group. How long've you been together? It takes time to build up, but I can't imagine my players arguing with me about a game (whereas ten years ago they wouldn't have thought twice about it).

nagora
2008-08-25, 11:55 AM
MM should depend on the player in question. Druids should have it.
Maybe.

Characters who can summon should have access to it.
No. Summoners should know what they want to summon from experience or memory.


If your players are looking up monster stats, you've got a problem.
Exactly.

kamikasei
2008-08-25, 12:01 PM
In the 2e book it even specifically spells out that a player should not have a DMG, period. The reasoning behind this is mostly the mystery aspect of things, which is a a huge tool in the DM's arsenal. If the player's don't know all the rules, it makes the game that much better, IMO.

So, in relation to your above quote, as much of a lack of trust you would feel if the DM asked you not to bring your DMG (or to give it to him if you pulled it out), that's as much of a lack of trust as the typical DM will feel when a player questions their rulings and whips out the DMG to correct them.

No doubt. Which is why I suggest that the DM not take away the players' books, and that he make it clear the players should not start citing chapter and verse to contradict him. Hooray, no one feels a lack of trust!

I don't agree with the idea that the players should be kept ignorant of the rules (as opposed to ignorant of what the DM has set up). By that logic, someone who DMs is worse as a player as a result.


See, this is way too care-bear to me. When you sign on to play with a DM, you are saying you trust them to allow them all the DM powers/choices in campaign/setting/encounter creation. To have to spell it out would tell me that the initial assumption is that the DM is bound to all the rules as printed, which just isn't the case.

I agree that trusting the DM with that sort of discretion should be the default. In this case it certainly seems not to be so, however, so I suggest celestialkin try to bring his players that far on board before getting more heavy-handed.


No. Summoners should know what they want to summon from experience or memory.

I can't agree; a summoner character can be expected to know about as much about his summons' abilities as would be represented by having access to their stat blocks. Not to mention that it puts quite a lot on the DM to have a summoner who can't track his own critters' combat numbers.

BigPapaSmurf
2008-08-25, 12:02 PM
The DMG and particularly the MM, and some other books are the "Teacher's edition", and the players should know this. The MM is far more important to prevent than the DMG, the DMG isnt going to give away any of your campaign/adventure secrets, the MM will give them access to weaknesses and whatnot that they just shouldnt have. Another thing to watch is if your 'other' DM is playing a PC and uses his/her knowledge of the game to an unfair advantage, most of the time it will be minor and you can let them get away with it if they roleplay it but if they as a lvl 3 barbarian start whipping out the known weaknesses of a tarrasque then you need to put the smackdown.

In addition to some of the other things suggested, when they pull out a book you might say "Your character isnt carrying that reference book, please put it away" or if they do manage to have some monster reference book on the PC, time them from the moment they open it and dock them that many rounds of action, before they can give the info to the other PCs.

RTGoodman
2008-08-25, 12:10 PM
Ah, the joys of being the only person in my group with copies of most of our books... :smalltongue:

Regarding the DMG, I can understand if they'd want it in some circumstances. I mean, you HAVE to have it if you're building a higher-level character (for magic items and such) or if you want one of the PrCs from it. The only other place for those in the SRD, and if you're worried about players learning what they shouldn't it's your real problem - all the DMG stuff AND all the monsters (mostly), and all for free and widely available online. I'd just tell your players, "Hey, if you don't need something specifically from the DMG, don't go reading. It'll ruin the fun of the game."

I don't know who would let players keep a MM at the table and let 'em flip through it, but I do make sure we have an extra copy of the MM in case the caster wants to summon something or whatever. But they don't get to flip through it - they just get it to copy down in relevant stats (or just stay on that page if it's a short-term summons.

If you're worried about metagaming because PCs have access to MM or DMG and you can't stop it, why not use in-game methods to solve the problem? If a player starts telling the rest about the dragon's weakness to cold, ask him how HIS CHARACTER knows. Make him roll a Knowledge check to see if his character ACTUALLY knows it. My players used to be bad about that kind of thing, but once I started forcing them to use Knowledge skills they stopped (and actually started spending skill points on those skills). It may seem like common sense, but I've played in a LOT of games that didn't require anything of the sort.

valadil
2008-08-25, 12:19 PM
No. Summoners should know what they want to summon from experience or memory.


Disagreed. I often play a caster. I usually have some summons as an option but don't use them often enough to memorize them. Ideally I'll have all the options written out, but if I haven't I'd like to be able to check if that dire lion or brown bear is a better choice to summon.

nagora
2008-08-25, 12:22 PM
I can't agree; a summoner character can be expected to know about as much about his summons' abilities as would be represented by having access to their stat blocks. Not to mention that it puts quite a lot on the DM to have a summoner who can't track his own critters' combat numbers.
I've no problem with the summoner having all the data once s/he has decided/committed to what they're summoning.

Arbitrarity
2008-08-25, 12:25 PM
I've no problem with the summoner having all the data once s/he has decided/committed to what they're summoning.

Ah, that makes much more sense. Also, it allows such a player to save time for the DM by modifying monster statistics as needed (i.e. applying templates, statistics changes like Augment Summoning) and doing attack rolls if needed.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 12:30 PM
So in other words, you instituted a rule designed to allow players limited participation. But you decided even that was too much participation.

And Tromskull? The players shouldn't know the rules? Really?

So my character has no idea what windstorms do? My character has no idea what the flying rules are despite being able to fly?

Leave it to a bunch of DMs to decide that players are just their little pets, that do what they want, and aren't even allowed to know the consequences of their own actions.

Tormsskull
2008-08-25, 12:49 PM
And Tromskull? The players shouldn't know the rules? Really?


Woah! Usually people drop an 'S' off my name, but jeeze :smalltongue:



So my character has no idea what windstorms do? My character has no idea what the flying rules are despite being able to fly?

Leave it to a bunch of DMs to decide that players are just their little pets, that do what they want, and aren't even allowed to know the consequences of their own actions.


I don't think that a PC should know all the magic items in the game. I don't think a PC should know exactly how the non-Prime Material Planes work. I don't think a PC should know how all the abilities of monsters work.

If this information which is kept in the DMG becomes necessary for a player to know, the DM should then inform them of it.

nagora
2008-08-25, 12:49 PM
So in other words, you instituted a rule designed to allow players limited participation. But you decided even that was too much participation.
You seem to be confusing "participation" with "god-like abilities".


And Tromskull? The players shouldn't know the rules? Really?
It's an RPG; the rules are what the DM says they are. The PHB says what the players know (bad rulebook design in 3e notwithstanding).


So my character has no idea what windstorms do?
Of course they do; they just don't need to know what numbers are used to model it. Just like they don't know how many hit points the guy they're mouthing off to in the pub has even if they know he's 7' tall and 5' wide.


My character has no idea what the flying rules are despite being able to fly?
S/he knows how the rules work as regards his/her own ability, sure. Why should s/he know how they relate to an air elemental?


Leave it to a bunch of DMs to decide that players are just their little pets, that do what they want, and aren't even allowed to know the consequences of their own actions.
You learn that by trying.

Diggorian
2008-08-25, 12:51 PM
I'm willing to be called on a rules mistake, as others have said it's only fair.

If I change how a universal rule works, I'll forewarn the players since it's something their characters would know being inhabitants of this setting. Similarly if they spent levels hunting trolls, their monster stats could be read since they're experts on the species.

Druids players can metagame stat knowledge for common creatures of their home environ and rangers can know about their favored enemies - especially if they have the ranks in knowledge to back it up.

Trying to correct me on something I've redesigned that the character has zero experience with is a no no. It's especially helpful to preserve this mystery by not referring to the item or monster by any recognizable name. Just describe what their senses can perceive and nothing else.

As DM, it's your house (http://dadominion.com/blog/2008/07/25/its-your-house/)to rule.

fendrin
2008-08-25, 12:52 PM
So in other words, you instituted a rule designed to allow players limited participation. But you decided even that was too much participation.

And Tromskull? The players shouldn't know the rules? Really?

So my character has no idea what windstorms do? My character has no idea what the flying rules are despite being able to fly?

Leave it to a bunch of DMs to decide that players are just their little pets, that do what they want, and aren't even allowed to know the consequences of their own actions.

Not all DMs are like that, I promise. :smallwink:

Honestly, the big thing is managing player expectations.

Tell them that you feel that the constant rule battles are detracting from the game, and that you would prefer that some rules be utilized incorrectly than to stop to fix it. In exchange, if you are unsure of a rule, ask them if they know off the top of their head. That really comes down to trust, though, as you have to trust that they aren't going to try to cheat, just as they have to trust you when you don't ask. I actually found the rules lawyer at my table to be an invaluable resource because I knew he wouldn't cheat.

I would be insulted by a DM who told me not to look in the DMG (heck, I'm also a DM, so I have to). Same thing with the MM. On the other hand, I would never look stuff up mid-game and use it to argue with the DM, because I'm not out to 'win' D&D.

In the end, if you aren't having fun as the DM, tell your players and ask one of them to DM for a while. If they don't want to, then tell them you will continue if and only if they trust you.

hamlet
2008-08-25, 12:57 PM
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've always held to the general principle that players should not be opening any books (not even the PHB) during play.*

Simply put, it slows down play, and in 3.x and 4.0, that's pretty much the kiss of death anyway.

The only time that players should be opening books is when they have a specific question they need to answer and have cleared it with the DM (who may, in fact, know the answer and obviate the need to look it up in the first place, thus saving time).

Players should know pretty much everything their character is capable of and should know how it all works without having to reference the PHB.

It just makes things go smoother IMO.


*The exception to this is spellcasters who may have not written down their spells on paper to attach to their character sheet. However, even then, a good player will have copies of the functions of all their spells written out in a "spell book" so that they don't have to constantly refer to the PHB.

Artanis
2008-08-25, 01:01 PM
Of course, you could always use this (http://www.reallifecomics.com/archive/000731.html) the next time the person tries it :smallbiggrin:

Douglas
2008-08-25, 01:02 PM
In 3.X, I would take a very dim view of this. There are rules relevant to the PCs in the DMG, and the players should have access to those rules. Specifically, prestige classes and magic items, and probably a few minor miscellaneous other things.

In 4e, I probably wouldn't bother to bring the DMG to the game in the first place because WotC finally got smart and put all the rules the players care about in the PHB instead. Every Paragon Path, Epic Destiny, and non-artifact magic item is in the PHB, and the DMG really is limited to things specific to the DM.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-25, 01:04 PM
My group recently gave up 4e, no one seemed to like it much. So we all took a vote, and decided to return to 2nd Edition AD&D (more specifically the Birthright campaign setting). As I started refreshing my memory on the 2e Core books I was amazed at the differences in language between 2e to 3e or 4e.

In the 2e book it even specifically spells out that a player should not have a DMG, period. The reasoning behind this is mostly the mystery aspect of things, which is a a huge tool in the DM's arsenal. If the player's don't know all the rules, it makes the game that much better, IMO.



Man that was a pretty cool setting with the various Blood lines. There is still a little bit at WOTC if you don't have it in the previous editions section.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads

Dausuul
2008-08-25, 01:07 PM
As far as I'm concerned, as of the release of 4E, the PHB is the only book that contains rules. Everything in the DMG and the MM is advisory. Therefore, rules-lawyering with the DMG and MM is not possible, and I will scoff at any player who tries.

(In 3.X, there were a few rules in the DMG and MM. But only a few, and only because they did a lousy job of segregating player content from DM content.)

To the OP - I'm curious. What exactly was the argument about?

Triaxx
2008-08-25, 01:12 PM
I always found a simple rule easy enough to work with. If you want a rule quote out of the DMG, ask the DM. I will read, and then show off the requested passage. Everyone else is politely informed that if they reach for their copy, they will find themselves fighting Pun-Pun one on one.

And the original question? I'd get up and walk back out.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 01:17 PM
You seem to be confusing "participation" with "god-like abilities".

Participation in rules discussions. the 60 second rule exists solely to give players a limited participation in rulings, a chance to inform the DM of rules they know and/or, to demonstrate why the DMs change is actually a bad idea.

If you then take away their books, yes, that is an example of depriving them of participation in something you previously promised them they would have.

I don't why every DM in the world thinks that they have considered every possible thing any player could ever say and so the players opinions are worthless.


It's an RPG; the rules are what the DM says they are. The PHB says what the players know (bad rulebook design in 3e notwithstanding).

So what is bad rulebook design? You say right below this that you think Players should not be allowed to read the flying rules or the wind rules, despite being able to create wind and fly? Do they also not get to know items as Tormsskull advocates?

By the way, you are wrong, it's an RPG, so it has rules, and the players need to know these rules, all of them, or their actions are deprived of any meaning.


Of course they do; they just don't need to know what numbers are used to model it. Just like they don't know how many hit points the guy they're mouthing off to in the pub has even if they know he's 7' tall and 5' wide.

I'm sorry, no. They do need to know the numbers. When I throw something, I know how much wind is going to affect it's flight. Because I can see the winds effects. In D&D, the only effect the wind has is a numerical effect. They can't see by how much they missed, they can only know the penalty they take.

Comparably, I can measure approximate wind speed, and therefore judge effects based on looking around, or by how it blows at my clothes. The only way a character can judge a wind speed is by being told it's category.

Should Druids and Wizards not even know what their spells are capable of doing?

DM: There is a very strong wind?
Player: How strong? Windstorm? Hurricane?
DM: You don't know that!!! It's just strong!
Player: But I need to know how strong it is to know how it affects my characters decisions.
DM: Fine it's a Windstorm.
Player: Can I make a ranged attack? Is it at a penalty or is it impossible?
DM: You don't know that!!!
Player: Surely my Archer Ranger who has been firing arrows his whole life can deduce whether the storm makes his shot much harder, or completely impossible.


S/he knows how the rules work as regards his/her own ability, sure. Why should s/he know how they relate to an air elemental?

Because they are exactly the same? Flying is flying. It's the same rules for every creature, if you know it for yourself you know it for them.


You learn that by trying.

Well my character has over 200 years of trying in his past, so I'm betting he might have some ability to know the immediate results of his actions.


Woah! Usually people drop an 'S' off my name, but jeeze

Sorry, my o key sticks and so I have lots of typos with it. N key too.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 01:23 PM
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've always held to the general principle that players should not be opening any books (not even the PHB) during play.*

1) Yes you are in the minority, since the PHB specifically says that Players should have access to it at any time for any reason and that the DM is not allowed to deprive them of it.


The only time that players should be opening books is when they have a specific question they need to answer and have cleared it with the DM (who may, in fact, know the answer and obviate the need to look it up in the first place, thus saving time).

I'm sorry, why do you think the DM knows more then the Players. If opening books is so terrible, then do you make DMs ask every single player what the rules are before opening any books. Players are more likely to know rules the DM doesn't then the DM is to know rules the Players don't.


*The exception to this is spellcasters who may have not written down their spells on paper to attach to their character sheet. However, even then, a good player will have copies of the functions of all their spells written out in a "spell book" so that they don't have to constantly refer to the PHB.

Why should they have to do that other then to satisfy your power trip fantasy? Writing out anything more then the page number is a waste of time.

hamlet
2008-08-25, 01:34 PM
1) Yes you are in the minority, since the PHB specifically says that Players should have access to it at any time for any reason and that the DM is not allowed to deprive them of it.



I'm sorry, why do you think the DM knows more then the Players. If opening books is so terrible, then do you make DMs ask every single player what the rules are before opening any books. Players are more likely to know rules the DM doesn't then the DM is to know rules the Players don't.



Why should they have to do that other then to satisfy your power trip fantasy? Writing out anything more then the page number is a waste of time.

1) As far as I recall, only the 3.0 and later books state that.

2) I didn't say the DM knows more than the players, but that is a distinct possibility, especially when you're playing AD&D as opposed to D20. Chances are, he's made plans for each situation based on what the characters might do and has probably looked up the rules on those actions to see how they will affect the situation.

3) Maybe if you'd actually read what I wrote, you could figure it out without insulting me. I said specifically that it saves time not having to flip through an entire book to find the specific spell. It especially saves time when you don't have to flip through more than one book. Yes, you have to go through a few pages, but it's only, maybe, 10 pages as opposed to (in 3.x) 400 pages. It makes things quicker and easier during play. It's part of the responsibility of the players just as the DM has responsibilities.

nagora
2008-08-25, 01:35 PM
Participation in rules discussions. the 60 second rule exists solely to give players a limited participation in rulings, a chance to inform the DM of rules they know and/or, to demonstrate why the DMs change is actually a bad idea.
You don't need the DMG for any of that.


If you then take away their books, yes, that is an example of depriving them of participation in something you previously promised them they would have.
Who promised them access to the DMG/MM? Not I!


I don't why every DM in the world thinks that they have considered every possible thing any player could ever say and so the players opinions are worthless.
That's not what we're talking about here.


So what is bad rulebook design?
Having player information in the DM's book.


You say right below this that you think Players should not be allowed to read the flying rules or the wind rules, despite being able to create wind and fly? Do they also not get to know items as Tormsskull advocates?
That's right. The players don't get to know anything their characters don't know and the DM has the right to change an item's powers as desired. So long as the DM is consistant with the PHB and their own previous rulings then there's no issue. If the DM wants to go against the PHB or their own rulings then the players deserve to know about it.

If the DM places a ring of invisibility in a game s/he has no obligation to mention to the players that s/he counts each use of the ring as having a 10% chance of attracting an Invisible Stalker. Just because YOU once read the DMG and saw that it has no such effect does not matter a jot; your character has no such knowledge.


By the way, you are wrong, it's an RPG, so it has rules, and the players need to know these rules, all of them, or their actions are deprived of any meaning.
No. There is only 1 rule: rule 0; everything else is only guidelines. The characters' actions are given meaning by the consequences of those actions in the game world, not by mechanical rules. Rules are fluff to be discarded or modified whenever they get in the way of the DM's design.


I'm sorry, no. They do need to know the numbers. When I throw something, I know how much wind is going to affect it's flight.
You must throw things an awful lot if you know that.

Because I can see the winds effects. In D&D, the only effect the wind has is a numerical effect.
No it isn't.


They can't see by how much they missed, they can only know the penalty they take.
So you agree that the characters learn by observation?


Comparably, I can measure approximate wind speed, and therefore judge effects based on looking around, or by how it blows at my clothes. The only way a character can judge a wind speed is by being told it's category.
They can be told how much its blowing their clothes about.


Should Druids and Wizards not even know what their spells are capable of doing?
Generally yes. But more for ease of play.


DM: There is a very strong wind?
Player: How strong? Windstorm? Hurricane?
DM: You don't know that!!! It's just strong!
Player: But I need to know how strong it is to know how it affects my characters decisions.
DM: Fine it's a Windstorm.
Player: Can I make a ranged attack? Is it at a penalty or is it impossible?
DM: You don't know that!!!
Player: Surely my Archer Ranger who has been firing arrows his whole life can deduce whether the storm makes his shot much harder, or completely impossible.
The DM can handle all that without recourse to specific numbers.


Because they are exactly the same? Flying is flying. It's the same rules for every creature, if you know it for yourself you know it for them.
IMC the flight rules for air elementals are totally different from those for a dragon. I don't think this is unique to me.


Well my character has over 200 years of trying in his past, so I'm betting he might have some ability to know the immediate results of his actions.
If the DM has (foolishly IMO) allowed you to play a character with 200 years of non-played experience then s/he should indeed allow you to know more than a 20-year-old character, yes.

Tormsskull
2008-08-25, 01:38 PM
I would be insulted by a DM who told me not to look in the DMG (heck, I'm also a DM, so I have to). Same thing with the MM. On the other hand, I would never look stuff up mid-game and use it to argue with the DM, because I'm not out to 'win' D&D.


Which is understandable, but you are generalizing the situation. Keep in mind this situation, and the OP's specific question spring from a specific situation. The DM said something, player doubts them and whips out their DMG to try to prove the DM wrong.

Obviously if a DM is stopping by your house at random intervals and checking up on you to see if you are reading your DMG, we can all say the guy's a turd.



Man that was a pretty cool setting with the various Blood lines. There is still a little bit at WOTC if you don't have it in the previous editions section.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads


Thanks for the link man, and yes, awesome setting. I also have the Sierra computer game based on it and I like to let it run turns as they would lapse in the P&P timeframe, and then utilizie the events in the Computer game to frame things happening in the P&P game.

So, if in the computer game Spider attacks Ender, f/x, the PCs in my P&P game (assuming they are somewhat close) might start to hear rumors or actually experience the invasion if they were in Ender.



By the way, you are wrong, it's an RPG, so it has rules, and the players need to know these rules, all of them, or their actions are deprived of any meaning.


Well, this is all very subjective, of course. If you like to play the game very tactically, then it becomes important for each of the players to know exactly how their actions will be resolved. Personally, I don't like to play that tactically, so I use the rule of 'if their character wouldn't know it, they wouldn't know it.'

Has your character ever fired a bow at creatures flying in the middle of a hurricance? If not, he probably doesn't know exactly how it is going to alter his chances of success. He'll probably have a good idea by applying common sense, but to tell him the numerical affects would break immersion to me.



Well my character has over 200 years of trying in his past, so I'm betting he might have some ability to know the immediate results of his actions.


You're using a specific example to try to prove a point though. That's where often times the game starts to break a part when you have an elf who is 180 years old and 1st level and a human who is 15 years old and 1st level.



Sorry, my o key sticks and so I have lots of typos with it. N key too.


No problem man, and I appreciate you spelling it correctly this time.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-25, 01:42 PM
I'm sorry, why do you think the DM knows more then the Players. If opening books is so terrible, then do you make DMs ask every single player what the rules are before opening any books. Players are more likely to know rules the DM doesn't then the DM is to know rules the Players don't.

Agreed, Akimbo.
Heck, if I didn't know the rules so well (I try to optimize so it comes with the territory): he'd force 3.0 rules on us.

We almost died due to a few changes. 3.0 Darkness being stronger than 3.5 deeper darkness (it is, trust me). Drow (wasn't a spell caster I was sure) I was sure don't know deeper so after the session I made sure to check why the spell was so powerful.

He was using 3.0 rule: he never knew they changed it.

One guy was really in bad sorts: He was Hold Person. Again, DM forgot guy got to save every round (almost caused a death).
Luckily, after 3 rounds I remembered: 'Why was the Elf not rolling saves yet?"
So the Elf finally got to roll a save and made it.

Again, didn't realize rules change in editions.

And, this was just the PHB rules he made mistakes in: Shudder I'd hate for him to use 3.0 CRs for 3.5 stuff (Ogre, after, all is higher CR in 3.5).

He was a good DM, but he missed stuff.

kjones
2008-08-25, 01:45 PM
Then, when they inevitably disregard this and debate something, you can just raise an eyebrow, look amused, and say "Why, yes, normal dragons do work that way..." and move along. Or, you know, however you feel like handling that; but the basic idea is that when your players say "but X can't do that!" and your response is "this isn't normal X," there's not a whole lot of argument that can happen, and the DMG won't help them much.

This. I don't have a problem with the players knowing the rules - hell, I prefer it to having to explain the rules to them - but I draw the line when they try to explain to me how my game works.

If you think I made a mistake, say so - I make mistakes. But if I tell you that I'm correct, what are you going to do about it? It's my world.

valadil
2008-08-25, 02:01 PM
Participation in rules discussions. the 60 second rule exists solely to give players a limited participation in rulings, a chance to inform the DM of rules they know and/or, to demonstrate why the DMs change is actually a bad idea.

...

By the way, you are wrong, it's an RPG, so it has rules, and the players need to know these rules, all of them, or their actions are deprived of any meaning.


I disagree. I opt for 60 second rules even as a player because I'd rather play the game than read the rulebook. I'd much prefer playing wrong for an hour than arguing over rules for 30 min and playing correctly for the other 30 min. Everyone in my group agrees with this. We often do have lengthier debates about the rules outside of game time. I don't see how this limits anyone's participation.

Players actions have meaning within the context of a story regardless of the rules involved. Whether or not I know how a bull rush works when I try to push someone off a cliff, my character just tried to send someone plummeting to his death. What dice I roll only determine the outcome, not the meaning of what happened.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-25, 02:03 PM
Agreed, Akimbo.
Heck, if I didn't know the rules so well (I try to optimize so it comes with the territory): he'd force 3.0 rules on us.

We almost died due to a few changes. 3.0 Darkness being stronger than 3.5 deeper darkness (it is, trust me). Drow (wasn't a spell caster I was sure) I was sure don't know deeper so after the session I made sure to check why the spell was so powerful.

He was using 3.0 rule: he never knew they changed it.

One guy was really in bad sorts: He was Hold Person. Again, DM forgot guy got to save every round (almost caused a death).
Luckily, after 3 rounds I remembered: 'Why was the Elf not rolling saves yet?"
So the Elf finally got to roll a save and made it.

Again, didn't realize rules change in editions.

And, this was just the PHB rules he made mistakes in: Shudder I'd hate for him to use 3.0 CRs for 3.5 stuff (Ogre, after, all is higher CR in 3.5).

He was a good DM, but he missed stuff.

As long as the rules are applied consistently it's okay for him to miss stuff things like the PCs casting Darkness or Hold Person and the BBEGs not rolling saves.

hamlet
2008-08-25, 02:08 PM
Agreed, Akimbo.
Heck, if I didn't know the rules so well (I try to optimize so it comes with the territory): he'd force 3.0 rules on us.

We almost died due to a few changes. 3.0 Darkness being stronger than 3.5 deeper darkness (it is, trust me). Drow (wasn't a spell caster I was sure) I was sure don't know deeper so after the session I made sure to check why the spell was so powerful.

He was using 3.0 rule: he never knew they changed it.

One guy was really in bad sorts: He was Hold Person. Again, DM forgot guy got to save every round (almost caused a death).
Luckily, after 3 rounds I remembered: 'Why was the Elf not rolling saves yet?"
So the Elf finally got to roll a save and made it.

Again, didn't realize rules change in editions.

And, this was just the PHB rules he made mistakes in: Shudder I'd hate for him to use 3.0 CRs for 3.5 stuff (Ogre, after, all is higher CR in 3.5).

He was a good DM, but he missed stuff.

And here's a prime example of vastly different play styles.

As a DM, I need to know the rules pertinent to the situation that comes up, so I make it a point to look them up ahead of time and either mark them or write them out in the adventure notes so that I don't have to stop all action just to pick them up. I expect, pretty much, the same of my players. If you play a character who does a lot of grappling/wrestling in my campaign, you'd darn well better know the rules without having to look them up every time. Of course, if it's something you don't do all the time and the word of the rule actually becomes important, then yes, go ahead and look it up, but chances are there's no reason that you should have to look it up in the first place.

I can't imagine playing a game as tactically and rules based as you seem to prefer. It'd be more like playing a board game to me, or chess, knowing all the numerical ramifications of every action/move and mulling it over and finding a way to exploit the rules. Makes for a great game of chess or Axis and Allies, but a really crappy D&D game where immersion into the world and the story the players are telling is the point, not rules immersion. That's the primary reason I can't stand the trend of "optimization."

ETA: When I play (as a player not as a DM) I really don't ever feel the need to open the PHB. I know pretty much all that I need to know to make my character go on a day to day basis. He's a cleric so I've done the work of writing out the spells that he casts on a regular basis out so that speeds things up (I pretty much have those spells memorized anyway) and about the only time I ever have to look in the book is when I pull out a spell that is unusual for the character (like, say, Dispel Magic or Remove Curse) where I'll have to reference the book to know specifics. More often than not, my DM already knows how the spell works and can just let me know in 2 seconds, or he can simply say "your spell works" and we move on.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 03:06 PM
You don't need the DMG for any of that.

You empathetically do need the DMG for rules pertaining to all sorts of things. He is stripping the players ability to participate in certain kinds of rules discussion.


Who promised them access to the DMG/MM? Not I!

He promised them a chance to give input as to rules decisions, not a chance to give input except when he doesn't want them to.


That's not what we're talking about here.

It kind of is. Because everyone who advocates taking away the DMG believes that Players are incapable of giving useful input into the discussion. This is demonstratively not true.


Having player information in the DM's book.

And my question is, what do you consider in the DMG to be player information. Because I do not want to be accused of using Strawman arguments. I want to know exactly what you consider Player material, and what DM material, though in the meantime I will just continue to use the examples you presented of wind speed.


That's right. The players don't get to know anything their characters don't know and the DM has the right to change an item's powers as desired. So long as the DM is consistant with the PHB and their own previous rulings then there's no issue. If the DM wants to go against the PHB or their own rulings then the players deserve to know about it.

I'm not talking about specific items. The DM can make up any damn item he wants. The problem is that there are many other things: Windspeed for example, flying for another, Survival skill, and outside adventuring for another, that PCs would know. The characters know these things.


If the DM places a ring of invisibility in a game s/he has no obligation to mention to the players that s/he counts each use of the ring as having a 10% chance of attracting an Invisible Stalker. Just because YOU once read the DMG and saw that it has no such effect does not matter a jot; your character has no such knowledge.

So what? No one cares. Just because a Dm can make up any item he wants doesn't mean that PCs can't look in the back of the DMG and try to buy any item there. Or Craft one if they can. PCs can make a Ring of Invisibility exactly according to the specifications in the DMG with no extra features if they craft it themselves. The only reason they would not be able to do this is if the DM told them before hand that there is no such item, and that in this world all items like that would have an effect.

Because you see, your character does have knowledge about every item in the DMG. He knows all about stat enhancers, save enhancers, ect. He knows everything there is to know about them because they are an assumed part of the setting that everyone knows.


No. There is only 1 rule: rule 0; everything else is only guidelines. The characters' actions are given meaning by the consequences of those actions in the game world, not by mechanical rules. Rules are fluff to be discarded or modified whenever they get in the way of the DM's design.

No, there is one rule: Rule -1: It is a game for players to have fun. There are also lots of other rules, including rule 0. Those rules serve to make sure rule -1 is followed. In order to override any rule in any book a DM needs to have a solid reason that relates to having fun. If you want to me Master and Commander go write a novel and stop trying to pretend that you are in some intrinsic way more important and superior to real human beings.


You must throw things an awful lot if you know that.

You don't need to throw things much, just simple spatial reasoning and some background knowledge is all that's needed.


No it isn't.

The only effect the wind has is it's effects as per the rules in the DMG. Stop playing semantic games and accept that there is no way for the Players to make the same decisions they would be capable of making in real life without knowing the mechanical effects of wind as listed in the DMG.


So you agree that the characters learn by observation?

I recognize, unlike you, that there are many things that my characters intrinsically know, and that these are represented by the rules in question governing resolving actions.

There are other things that are gathered from having already experienced them (the character, not just under this specific DM this campaign) and others represented by skill ranks.


They can be told how much its blowing their clothes about.

The difference is that it doesn't mean anything to them, because they cannot deduce from clothing movements how it will effect their actions, they can only determine that effect based on the wind speed category.


Generally yes. But more for ease of play.

So then why does the PHB section on Control Winds state that the Wind descriptions can be found in the DMG? Why doesn't it instead say: Ask your DM to explain what this means.


The DM can handle all that without recourse to specific numbers.

No he cannot. He can not tell the player any of the numbers so that the player is acting in the dark, but when it comes to actually resolving anything he needs the numbers.

He can also just tell players that they are "a distance" away from an enemy, but not how far, and then laugh at the player who tries to charge 100ft when he can't. But that's called being a bad DM who keeps players in the dark about things their character would know.


IMC the flight rules for air elementals are totally different from those for a dragon. I don't think this is unique to me.

No, the flight rules for everything are exactly the same. Everything has a mobility, and everything has a speed, just like in combat everything has a set bonus to will saves, and all saving throws have a DC. But a DM who tried to tell PCs that they can't know those mechanics would be decried as a fool.

Now, just as players do not get to know every DC and every bonus, they do not get to know that Dragon X has a 200ft fly speed with poor maneuverability, or that an Elemental has a 100ft perfect air speed. (Though they may know those things with knowledge checks.) But they do get to know the actual flying rules, and can deduce the fly speed, or be told it with a check, and then they can respond according to their complete and total knowledge of the game mechanics.


If the DM has (foolishly IMO) allowed you to play a character with 200 years of non-played experience then s/he should indeed allow you to know more than a 20-year-old character, yes.

You mean like an average Elf? Oh wait.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 03:11 PM
ETA: When I play (as a player not as a DM) I really don't ever feel the need to open the PHB. I know pretty much all that I need to know to make my character go on a day to day basis. He's a cleric so I've done the work of writing out the spells that he casts on a regular basis out so that speeds things up (I pretty much have those spells memorized anyway) and about the only time I ever have to look in the book is when I pull out a spell that is unusual for the character (like, say, Dispel Magic or Remove Curse) where I'll have to reference the book to know specifics. More often than not, my DM already knows how the spell works and can just let me know in 2 seconds, or he can simply say "your spell works" and we move on.

See, I personally have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of most rules in D&D, and can certainly create and run a character without any access to any book. But if the DM makes a mistake, and I know it (because I know the rules far better then anyone else in my personal group) I will tell them, then tell them the correct ruling, then tell them where to find it, or find it myself.

But that doesn't mean I think DMs should take books away, or that players shouldn't be allowed to know the rules, or that I shouldn't be allowed to look up anything I might want to in any of my books.

And when I DM I tell my players that they can correct me on anything at any time and I will listen to them. This works just great.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 03:19 PM
I disagree. I opt for 60 second rules even as a player because I'd rather play the game than read the rulebook. I'd much prefer playing wrong for an hour than arguing over rules for 30 min and playing correctly for the other 30 min. Everyone in my group agrees with this. We often do have lengthier debates about the rules outside of game time. I don't see how this limits anyone's participation.

Players actions have meaning within the context of a story regardless of the rules involved. Whether or not I know how a bull rush works when I try to push someone off a cliff, my character just tried to send someone plummeting to his death. What dice I roll only determine the outcome, not the meaning of what happened.

1) I'm not saying the limit isn't sensible, or that it shouldn't exist, I am saying that the complete removal of player input as regards anything the DM doesn't want their input on is in effect breaking the virtual contract he had with them before the game.

2) Players actions have no consequences if they act under false pretenses that their character would know. If you don't know the Bull Rush rules, and they had a Clause similar to Overrun where small dexterous halflings can escape, that matters.

If you make an attempt thinking that he has no ability to avoid it only oppose you, but your character knows better, then your actions are not in character at all. They are a lie perpetrated by a DMs unwillingness to allows character to have knowledge they fundamentally have.

valadil
2008-08-25, 03:21 PM
Because you see, your character does have knowledge about every item in the DMG. He knows all about stat enhancers, save enhancers, ect. He knows everything there is to know about them because they are an assumed part of the setting that everyone knows.


Where did you get that idea? I've played that way and I've played where we don't know what's available. Both seem valid. I can't recall seeing anything printed in a D&D book that favored one way or the other.

Tormsskull
2008-08-25, 03:27 PM
It kind of is. Because everyone who advocates taking away the DMG believes that Players are incapable of giving useful input into the discussion. This is demonstratively not true.


Players may have useful input, which would be great, outside of a game session.



Because you see, your character does have knowledge about every item in the DMG. He knows all about stat enhancers, save enhancers, ect. He knows everything there is to know about them because they are an assumed part of the setting that everyone knows.


Where does it say that it is assumed that all characters know this? I'm assuming you are just using your play experience as a reference, just as we are for the counter argument, i.e., no correct answer (in 3e and 4e that is, in previous editions it was quite spelled out).



No, there is one rule: Rule -1: It is a game for players to have fun. There are also lots of other rules, including rule 0. Those rules serve to make sure rule -1 is followed. In order to override any rule in any book a DM needs to have a solid reason that relates to having fun. If you want to me Master and Commander go write a novel and stop trying to pretend that you are in some intrinsic way more important and superior to real human beings.


There is no such Rule as Rule -1; it does not exist. The rule book specifically gives mention to Rule 0 for the DM because 3e is heavily based on a rules-approach.




The only effect the wind has is it's effects as per the rules in the DMG. Stop playing semantic games and accept that there is no way for the Players to make the same decisions they would be capable of making in real life without knowing the mechanical effects of wind as listed in the DMG.


Honestly, I do not see how that is playing semantic games. If you normally add +5 to hit with a bow, f/x, and then you practiced shooting into a strong wind several hundred times, and you knew the speed of that wind, then you probably would be able to determine the mechanical penalty of shooting into the same speed wind at a later time. But to assume that the characters know they are are exactly a certain % else likely to hit seems like a tactics-first preference (and honestly, an odd one for a RPG IMO).



Now, just as players do not get to know every DC and every bonus, they do not get to know that Dragon X has a 200ft fly speed with poor maneuverability, or that an Elemental has a 100ft perfect air speed.


But, honestly, why do they not get to know this? If you are playing a tactics-heavy game, doesn't it make more sense for them to know it? In other words, you want your PCs to live or die based on their ability to micromanage a battlefield. Are you saying they do not get to know because there is a way by the rules for their character to know (Knowledge Checks), and thus since there is a way to know, it must be assumed that they don't know?

In which case it would logically follow that if there is not a way to determine if your character knows something then it can be assumed that they do in fact know it.

This leads to the general argument of "A character can do anything they want unless it is strictly prohibited by a rule" versus "A character can only do something if there is a particular rule allowing it."

valadil
2008-08-25, 03:28 PM
1) I'm not saying the limit isn't sensible, or that it shouldn't exist, I am saying that the complete removal of player input as regards anything the DM doesn't want their input on is in effect breaking the virtual contract he had with them before the game.

2) Players actions have no consequences if they act under false pretenses that their character would know. If you don't know the Bull Rush rules, and they had a Clause similar to Overrun where small dexterous halflings can escape, that matters.

If you make an attempt thinking that he has no ability to avoid it only oppose you, but your character knows better, then your actions are not in character at all. They are a lie perpetrated by a DMs unwillingness to allows character to have knowledge they fundamentally have.

1. Fair enough. I'm very much in favor of players being the first priority of a GM.

2. This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. If I've got a character who has never faced a halfling before, I think it's reasonable that he might not expect his bullrush to be dodged. After that point, he'll learn what the little guys can do.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 03:34 PM
Well, this is all very subjective, of course. If you like to play the game very tactically, then it becomes important for each of the players to know exactly how their actions will be resolved. Personally, I don't like to play that tactically, so I use the rule of 'if their character wouldn't know it, they wouldn't know it.'

Has your character ever fired a bow at creatures flying in the middle of a hurricance? If not, he probably doesn't know exactly how it is going to alter his chances of success. He'll probably have a good idea by applying common sense, but to tell him the numerical affects would break immersion to me.

But see this is my point. I've never shot at something flying in a Hurricane, but I know for a fact that I could not hit it. The point is that once the downward component of the wind speed is faster then the speed of the arrow fired in a vacuum you can be sure that shooting is as effective as letting go of the arrow, which is to say, not worth your time. My whole point is that there are certain things your character implicitly would know if he were in that position, and they are all the basic rules that govern resolving actions, except the specific numbers like opponents AC and opponents Str check.


You're using a specific example to try to prove a point though. That's where often times the game starts to break a part when you have an elf who is 180 years old and 1st level and a human who is 15 years old and 1st level.

Fine then, I've had 20 years of experience. Whatever, these are all things that every single adventurer knows though. And that's been my point all along.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 03:40 PM
But, honestly, why do they not get to know this? If you are playing a tactics-heavy game, doesn't it make more sense for them to know it? In other words, you want your PCs to live or die based on their ability to micromanage a battlefield. Are you saying they do not get to know because there is a way by the rules for their character to know (Knowledge Checks), and thus since there is a way to know, it must be assumed that they don't know?

In which case it would logically follow that if there is not a way to determine if your character knows something then it can be assumed that they do in fact know it.

This leads to the general argument of "A character can do anything they want unless it is strictly prohibited by a rule" versus "A character can only do something if there is a particular rule allowing it."

No, the reason they don't know it is because different creature have different speeds, but wind has the same effect at each given speed no matter what. Just as Movement does. Moving around corners doesn't change because you are faster.

As for Players only being allowed to speak outside of the game, this is precisely my point, you feel that you as the DM are an inherently better, more important person then everyone else at the table, and their opinions have no value whatsoever. The fact that once the game is over, you so graciously lower yourself down to their level is the only reason you can actually operate in the world.

Galdor Miriel
2008-08-25, 03:45 PM
To be different I buy into the let the players bring whatever the heck book they want to the table. We are all playing the game, the dm is just doing more in terms of driving.

I would not want to play with a dm who would not allow feedback on rules. In our games we have piles of houserules, if there is no houserule the dm goes by RAW if possible, and anyone at the table is free to pitch in and grab the relevant book. We keep the games fast paced and exciting, even with full participation on rules because we have a strict round system. We keep track of the round and if you waffle or talk to much you lose your actions for that round, if it is your initiative yous say what you do, if there is a rule question we pause and deal with it, otherwise we move on.

If a dm said upfront they wanted to do secret rolls and use unknown house rules I would not be that keen. Some secret rolls are ok, for suspense, like the "Please roll 2 d2os for me" random request that keeps the players guessing, but lets just keep the rules out in the open.

When something not covered by the rules comes up, it will be the dms call, buts lets have some adult discussion first.


My two cents.

Vonriel
2008-08-25, 03:56 PM
As for Players only being allowed to speak outside of the game, this is precisely my point, you feel that you as the DM are an inherently better, more important person then everyone else at the table, and their opinions have no value whatsoever. The fact that once the game is over, you so graciously lower yourself down to their level is the only reason you can actually operate in the world.

Or, just possibly, it's to prevent things such as this, where a single conversation by a persistant rules-lawyer happens to hijack the entire gaming session while the DM and player argue back and forth about why X rule is/isn't a rule. Such conversations could be handled outside the game, and not end up wasting the time of the rest of the group, who came to the session to play.

Personally, I'd ask for scans of the PrC's, magic items, etc. and then happily hand mine over, as that's really the only things in their that I wouldn't want to consistently ask questions about.

Tormsskull
2008-08-25, 03:59 PM
No, the reason they don't know it is because different creature have different speeds, but wind has the same effect at each given speed no matter what. Just as Movement does. Moving around corners doesn't change because you are faster.


Here's your quote from earlier:



DM: There is a very strong wind?
Player: How strong? Windstorm? Hurricane?
DM: You don't know that!!! It's just strong!
Player: But I need to know how strong it is to know how it affects my characters decisions.
DM: Fine it's a Windstorm.
Player: Can I make a ranged attack? Is it at a penalty or is it impossible?
DM: You don't know that!!!
Player: Surely my Archer Ranger who has been firing arrows his whole life can deduce whether the storm makes his shot much harder, or completely impossible.


The bolded part tells me that you were approaching this from a tactics-first perspective. If you aren't, then I'm honestly perplexed at what exactly you are saying.

"But I need to know how strong it is to know how it affects my characters decisions." Tells me that the character is going to change what he does base on how the wind is going to affect him. Is a character able to look at or feel the affects of the wind and know that it is classified as "Strong Wind" or "Hurricane"? You seem to be saying yes.

Furthermore, you seem to be making a case for the character to know the Tables in the books as character knowledge. I.E., my character knows that this is a strong wind and he knows that his chance to hit with a ranged weapon is going to be reduced by 10%. Am I understanding you correctly here or no?



As for Players only being allowed to speak outside of the game, this is precisely my point, you feel that you as the DM are an inherently better, more important person then everyone else at the table, and their opinions have no value whatsoever. The fact that once the game is over, you so graciously lower yourself down to their level is the only reason you can actually operate in the world.

Its a lot easier to discuss/debate with someone when you are able to demonize them. This above quote isn't even remotely close to what I said. In a thread about if it is acceptable or not for a DM to tell his players not to look in the Dungeon Master's Guidebooks should a rules dispute occur, I said their input is great, after the game. If they say "I disagree with that rule." Fine, we'll double check it after rather than slowing down the whole game.

If we're talking about a difference in ruling that is going to be huge or life and death, then the player should mention that, and the DM can make the call if the book should be broken out right then and there.

Deepblue706
2008-08-25, 04:05 PM
Please tell me your opinions and suggestions about this. If you can, please list whether the thoughts you are stating are from a DM prospective or a Player prospective.


As always, thank you all in advance for any help you might give me.

As both a player and a DM, I find this to be perfectly acceptable. The PHB is for players. The DMG is DMs. So is the MM. DMs use the books to get info on what pertains to their game, and feed it to the PCs. And, no player should just grab one to begin arguing in the middle of play.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-25, 04:12 PM
As for Players only being allowed to speak outside of the game, this is precisely my point, you feel that you as the DM are an inherently better, more important person then everyone else at the table, and their opinions have no value whatsoever. The fact that once the game is over, you so graciously lower yourself down to their level is the only reason you can actually operate in the world.

Uh... no. You are conflating two notions and obligations of the DM. One is to keep things moving during the session and another is to get player imput and advise to keep the game fun for everyone. These two obligations need not be met at the same time, and probably shouldn't be met at the same time in most cases. Giving the players free reign to argue about rules during the session will, not can, will lead to at least one session getting bogged down with a debate. That's good for no one. Giving your ruling and then talking with them about it afterwards, potentially reversing yourself in the process if you were wrong, is a much more practical soloution.

@Celestialkin

That said, in my games I pretty much let the players have whatever they want that I am not currently making use of, up to and including the entire SRD, any books they care to bring and my entire bookshelf of books. Heck, they could look at these boards for ideas if they really wanted to (but they don't). However, the fact that they have access to whatever they want doesn't mean I'm going to let them spend 20 mins looking something up, or for that matter three minutes doing that. I'll just make a houserule on the spot if it's going to take that long to figure it out. It also doesn't mean that I'm going to be thrilled if they metagame a ton (such as looking up a monsters weaknesses in the MM, which I'd probably be using anyway). That, of course, is something my players understand without my having to take their books away. Similarly, if I were a player, and the DM demanded that I turn over my DMG to them, I would probably be insulted and demand an answer why I must right back.

Honestly, as others have mentioned, it sounds to me like the root cause here is not access to the books but argumentative players. Talk to them about the behavior of running to their DMG when you say some rules are going to be bent or changed and try to find a middle ground. Find out why they running to the DMG. Is it because they really don't want to play a game that departs much from the RAW? Is it just because they feel like they need to know the game mechanics and rules that will apply to their character to make decisions? Is it just because they have an unholy sentimental attachment to the rules exactly as spelled out? Is it just because they like to argue rules? Deal with the reasons why rather than the means how.

Chronos
2008-08-25, 04:28 PM
What's wrong with

Ranger: How strong is the wind?
DM: It's a really furious storm.
Ranger: Would I still be able to shoot arrows through it?
DM: [checks table] You think so, but you don't think you'd be likely to actually hit anything.Yes, the players should have some idea, in qualitative terms, of what certain situations mean. But why should they have access to the exact quantitative numbers?

Lochar
2008-08-25, 04:38 PM
What's wrong with
Yes, the players should have some idea, in qualitative terms, of what certain situations mean. But why should they have access to the exact quantitative numbers?

Because I need to know whether or not to get out the loaded dice so I can roll a 20, regardless of wind strength. :P

Fiery Diamond
2008-08-25, 04:38 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa Tormsskull! What the heck are you talking about? Rule -1 doesn't exist? What planet are you from? Rule 0 is stated in the rulebooks for one reason and one reason only -- and that isn't because it exists. It is stated because otherwise there would be legions of angry players upset that their DM was changing things, which, let's face it, would happen whether or not Rule 0 was stated in the book. Rule -1, the rule that says all is done for the enjoyment of the people involved in the game, is a rule that exists but is not written, kinda like English Common Law -- which you can't deny is still valid. All rules, including Rule 0, are subservient to Rule -1. This is not an opinion, this is a fact that does not change no matter who is playing the game. Except for when DMs who don't care about their players as human beings play, I guess.

As to the original topic, I would be extremely offended if a DM told me that I couldn't use the DM. I agree that the monster manual should only be used as a reference for summoning and such when used by players, though.

At no point in gameplay should the DM have the ability to feel superior to the players. He/she has control of the story and the rules, but all rules changes should be made clear to the players. In reference to the "tactics-first" attitude above, I would say this -- player tactics should not necessarily be considered worthy of concern for whether the player needs knowledge of rules, but character tactics are one of the most important reasons.

--Fiery Diamond, who DMs more than he is a player, and so if has any prejudice, leans in favor of the DM, and therefore his words supporting the player should be given extra weight

Artanis
2008-08-25, 04:39 PM
You don't need to throw things much, just simple spatial reasoning and some background knowledge is all that's needed.
You should totally try out for an NFL team as a quarterback. Because man, even with all that practice, those worthless QB still sometimes have the ball blown off-course and into the wrong player's hands.

hamlet
2008-08-25, 04:49 PM
See, I personally have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of most rules in D&D, and can certainly create and run a character without any access to any book. But if the DM makes a mistake, and I know it (because I know the rules far better then anyone else in my personal group) I will tell them, then tell them the correct ruling, then tell them where to find it, or find it myself.

But that doesn't mean I think DMs should take books away, or that players shouldn't be allowed to know the rules, or that I shouldn't be allowed to look up anything I might want to in any of my books.

And when I DM I tell my players that they can correct me on anything at any time and I will listen to them. This works just great.

You're missing the point.

I never said that the PC's can't at all disagree with the DM. I never said that a player can't speak up and say "no, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, maybe we ought to look that up and be sure . . ." within reason. I do it with my DM all the time, but I would never pick up a DMG and start arguing. I merely mention that I think his ruling is either incorrect or inappropriate and could we please get reconsideration.

I did say, though, that I find it inappropriate for the players to use the DMG (which is for the DM, not the players and very explicitely so) to challenge the DM on rules calls at every turn that may differ from the written rules. When you're playing an RPG, you're supposed to take the part of your character. It's inappropriate for you to pull out a rule book to judge every action mathematically and it's inappropriate to demand that the DM adhere to the rules as written in the DMG by quoting specific passages which the players should not have access to in the first place. It is, to me, exactly the same as a player pulling out a Monster Manual and looking up the weaknesses of every monster he fights so that he has an edge tactically.

D&D has (or I should say, HAD since the later editions have seriously failed in this) always had a separation of DM and Player knowledge, even if that was only a cordial agreement since most players, eventually, probably knew the DMG front to back as well as the DM. This was fully realized in AD&D 1e with the inauguration of the PHB and the DMG and the MM. Players were, essentially, permitted to know everything in the PHB (though their characters might not be fluent in everything). It was understood that the DMG and MM were specifically off limits to players.

Why was this done? Simply put, the DM always had control over everything that was not specifically the domain of the players. ALWAYS. The PHB was open to modification as the DM saw fit before play, but once play started, it was essentially the common ground between the DM and the players. The DMG was more than anything a book loaded with advice. In fact, if you go back and read the 1e DMG, there really aren't as many rules in it as you might think as there are bits of esoteric trivia, advice, and general guidlines. All those tables in there were explicitely optional too.

There was nothing in the DMG that the players needed to run their characters. Not even, really, saving throws or to-hit numbers. Honestly, some of the best games I've ever seen involved ones where the players were unaware of what their saving throws were or their general to-hit numbers. They knew only their side of that equation, that when asked to roll a saving throw, they rolled a D20 and read the number to the DM who let you know if you succeeded or failed.

My point in all of this, in relation to the OP, is that, in general, it's better as a player to not have to go hunting through the rules books every time you want to know something about your character and, on top of that, it's also better, as a player, to at least pretend that you don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the DMG as well. It helps with the imersion.

The corrolary to that is, of course, that it is the DM's responsibility to know the pertinent rules when they come up and, if he doesn't, to either put a ruling in place to speed along game play or, if neccessary, look it up.

That way, the rules don't end up overtaking the role part of the game and are kept quietly in the background during play where they belong.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-25, 04:59 PM
I'm curious as to what the player in question was doing with the DMG that was so heinous.

Asking for clarification or consistency on a rule is not an offense, and pointing to a page number can actually minimize argument if handled maturely by both player and DM.

On the other hand, of course, rules lawyering is annoying as hell---but honestly, depriving someone of the DMG isn't going to stop a die-hard rules lawyer. They'll just argue anyway, and without the books, the argument is just going to last longer. Rules lawyers aren't going to be fixed by a restrictive DM--you just have to ask them to stop their BS or kick them out, period.

Comes down to this: players and DMs should have a contract of trust and agreement to give and take as is fair between each other.

DM is houseruling? Fine. DM needs to make those house rules clear up front. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect players to follow house rules if the GM is not clear in explaining them or consistent in enforcing them. I write up my house rules and give them to my players before the campaign starts, and it avoids loads of potential arguments right there.

DM makes a mistake. I'm cool with my players correcting me. There are a lot of rules and sometimes I goof up, and I have no problem with a player telling me, "Isn't that a percentile die roll rather than a saving throw?" Oh, right. Correct the call, move on. They got their books with them to help speed the discussion along, fine and dandy.

Rules interpretation argument? This is where the Players have to respect the GM's call.... but if GM is respectful to and consistent with his players, they should have no problem returning the favor. "Okay, you say it's +2 and I say it's +4; since we can't find an agreeing statement in the rules and we're wasting game time, let's go with my call now and we'll check to see if there's a rules clarification after session." Have seldom had a player disagree with this calling.

Good reason for players to hold onto DMGs, apart from the DM trust issues: DMGs have magic items and rules for prestige classes listed in them. Kinda necessary for a lot of players, especially high level ones.

Monster manual? No, they probably shouldn't have it (unless I guess they need stats for their familiar or summoned monsters). But I personally don't mind that much if they have it. If I see a player looking up monster stats (hasn't happened in YEARS, honestly), they get called out for metagaming and penalized. Otherwise... well, even though I largely just use the MMI, I have a habit of leveling up weaker monsters' hit dice or adding character classes... keeps "typical" monsters unexpected and players can't immediately guess at all their abilities. I don't have to keep an arsenal of unique monster stats and they get a good challenge. Yay. :smallsmile:

Evil DM Mark3
2008-08-25, 05:02 PM
I have never permitted the DMG to be available during sessions, save for a few purposes such as magic item crafting. The MM is likewise off limits save for appropriate summonings etc

xPANCAKEx
2008-08-25, 05:18 PM
What's wrong with
Yes, the players should have some idea, in qualitative terms, of what certain situations mean. But why should they have access to the exact quantitative numbers?

above + rule 0 = nail on the head

you're running the game - they should trust you to do it fairly. simple as that. If they don't like it, they can find a different DM or run their own game. Any squabbles can be disputed after the game itself. As for monsters, you can get round it by announcing "You spot 2 hobgoblins up ahead... some how they seem different [more/less *insert appropriate adjective here*] than most hobgoblins you've seen before. As long as you make it clear the monsters are different, then they can no longer rely on the MM or DMG or whathaveyou

treat the MM (and stats in the DMG) like a menu in a GOOD restuarant. They're the main options. But they're just guidelines. With a few polite enquiries, the kitchen staff can probably whip up something different for you. And that analogy proves just how middle class i am.

kjones
2008-08-25, 05:23 PM
One reason that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet to let players keep the DMG is that it lists all the status effects, and IIRC those are not listed in the PHB. It can be important for a player to know what is happening to their character, or exactly what one of their abilities does.

That being said, I tend to run things like Chronos does.

It might help the discussion if you say whether your perspective is primarily that of a GM or of a player when you post. I'm coming at this from the GM's perspective.

Tormsskull
2008-08-25, 05:26 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa Tormsskull! What the heck are you talking about? Rule -1 doesn't exist? What planet are you from? Rule 0 is stated in the rulebooks for one reason and one reason only -- and that isn't because it exists. It is stated because otherwise there would be legions of angry players upset that their DM was changing things, which, let's face it, would happen whether or not Rule 0 was stated in the book.

I feel like we have suddenly drifted into a philosophical discussion. Rule -1 doesn't exist, it really doesn't. It is no where in the books, as far as the game is concerned, there is no such thing.

Of course, there is not rule that says you can't destroy the DM's books that he lets you read through either, but that's because its common sense. Rule -1 doesn't exist for a very specific reason, IT's COMMON SENSE. As soon as you expect a game to give you common sense rules, you're already lost.

As far as DMs making up their own stuff and such, since the very beginnings of D&D that's been the way of it. That's why D&D is such an awesome game. Each and every campaign of D&D can be its own unique and awesome game. Players who think that Rule 0 is a bad thing, or try to supercede it by inventing a Rule -1 (Players really have the power, not the DM!) means that they have already completely missed the point of D&D.

Being the DM is not about lording over people and making things go the way you want. It is about creating a world, adventures, setting, etc. that is going to be fun to experience. Its about bringing a fantasy world to life.

If a particular DM is being a douche, imaginary Rule -1 or imaginery Rule -1,000,000 isn't going to do anything to stop them. You try to talk your differences out (when appropriate, NOT in the middle of the game), and if you can't, you try to find a game elsewhere.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-25, 05:36 PM
One reason that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet to let players keep the DMG is that it lists all the status effects, and IIRC those are not listed in the PHB. It can be important for a player to know what is happening to their character, or exactly what one of their abilities does.

That being said, I tend to run things like Chronos does.

It might help the discussion if you say whether your perspective is primarily that of a GM or of a player when you post. I'm coming at this from the GM's perspective.

Oh right, I forgot that they are found there. I mean the Glossary in the PHB has a few but not all.

Ralfarius
2008-08-25, 05:36 PM
I'm with Akimbo/Starbuck_II/Galdor Miriel and such that it's just kind of rude and overbearing to be denying your players access to reference material. Having been a DM more than a player (60%+ of my game time), I've come to believe that players who are more knowledgeable, and whom apply that knowledge are a greater asset to our games than those who need rules looked up for them all the time.

If rules discussion is getting to a point that it's bogging down gameplay and detracting from everyone's fun, then some sort of reasonable consensus on rules arbitration should be reached between games. You should be able to sit down with the other people at the table and decide where the happy medium is for everyone on the free-wheeling/rules-layer scale. When you instead sit down and say "Okay, DMGs... Hand 'em over!" you're only a few steps away from shouting no chewing gum in your class.

I always take offense to the idea that it's "My Game" as a DM. It's the group's game, the DM just happens to be the one running the NPCs and mapping out the dungeons/cobbling together the quests. As a group activity, everyone should feel satisfied with their contribution and involvement. Granted, this may mean a total handover of control to the DM for some players - which is fine, it's just a matter of preference - but, usually, players like to feel more involved in the game. If they don't feel like they're getting a fair deal in the rules, and that they don't have much of a say how it should be, then they're more likely to become dissatisfied and disinterested with the game.

It's not your game, it's everyone's game. As a DM, you should be working with players to build the game, not treating them like minions/guests/adversaries. 'Cause without the players, there's no game.

Knaight
2008-08-25, 05:40 PM
No. Summoners should know what they want to summon from experience or memory.

Thats ridiculous. That said there is no need for them to have anything that they aren't going to be able to summon copied.

Matthew
2008-08-25, 05:48 PM
I wouldn't care at all. It is doubtful I would have brought a PHB, never mind a DMG. In any case, we share books if we need to use them.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-25, 05:57 PM
I wouldn't care at all. It is doubtful I would have brought a PHB, never mind a DMG. In any case, we share books if we need to use them.

This made me think that I should probably clarify why I would be a little offended if my DM asked me to hand over my DMG. It's not because I feel like I have a right to access the DMG at any time I feel like during gameplay and/or argue DMG-rules trum the DM.

I would be offended and want an explanation because apparently my DM felt that I couldn't be trusted with my own copy of the DMG at the table. i.e. that I was not a mature enough player for the DM to ask me to stop doing whatever thing I may or may not have been doing with the DMG (or whatever book really) but felt the need instead to deny me access to it without addressing the reason they felt the need to do so.

At core, it's a respect thing. Pun not intended.

Gralamin
2008-08-25, 05:59 PM
If the rule isn't known or in dispute, I simply say what I think it should be, and we look it up after the session (or after the fight, if someone looks it up between turns). It keeps the game going, without any real problem.

Raum
2008-08-25, 06:02 PM
I now want to contact all my players and tell them that on the days I will be running to leave their DMGs and MMs at home, or to hand them to me at the very start of our gaming sessions if they must bring them.

Before I do any of this I thought I should ask others' opinions on this. Please tell me your opinions and suggestions about this. If you can, please list whether the thoughts you are stating are from a DM prospective or a Player prospective. I'd ask why you feel the rules need to be hidden from me, the player. I'd wonder what blanket you're trying to pull over my eyes. I might even resent you attempting to control a resource I own - depends on how you present it.

Stick with the 60 second rule during game play. Better yet just rule in favor of the players during the game (if you're not certain of the rule) with the understanding that you'll verify such rulings afterwards and possibly revise for future sessions. After all, NPCs are a dime a dozen - so what if a mistaken ruling kills a BBEG? You have more.

Knaight
2008-08-25, 06:04 PM
Yes, that said there is no need for the players to be referencing them. See this sort of stuff is why I don't play D&D, nobody should have to reference books at all during play, with the wind and flying examples, the players don't need to know the rules. If they can fly, they declare where they want to fly, and in some cases the dice come out, because twisting canyons with trees coming out of them are difficult to navigate. There is no need for such rules glut that covers everything, in many cases poorly, that people are going to be arguing over it in the first place, let alone bringing out the books.

mikethepoor
2008-08-25, 06:08 PM
If I didn't have a habit of it, I'd ask them why they wanted my DMG, and become suspicious immediately. If I did, then I could understand. My personal standpoint is as long as OOC knowledge doesn't affect IC actions, you're fine; if it does, put the books away.

Matthew
2008-08-25, 06:32 PM
At core, it's a respect thing. Pun not intended.



I'd ask why you feel the rules need to be hidden from me, the player. I'd wonder what blanket you're trying to pull over my eyes. I might even resent you attempting to control a resource I own - depends on how you present it.

I think that's the up and down of it. If you have a confrontational relationship with your DM and he is being a jerk, it's possible you might tell him to "get bent" on the principle of thing [i.e. "YOU tell ME"]...

...but if it's just "Alright lads, put the DMG's away, you know why. If we really need a rule, we'll look it up." ...then I doubt it's going to be a problem.

Tormsskull
2008-08-25, 06:37 PM
...but if it's just "Alright lads, put the DMG's away, you know why. If we really need a rule, we'll look it up." ...then I doubt it's going to be a problem.

Hopefully, a DM doesn't even have to say this, though. Again, keep in mind the specific context of this thread. We're not talking about the group sitting around having a grand ole time and then a player takes a look in his DMG and then the DM yells at him.

We're not talking about a DM saying "I'm not sure, someone wanna look it up?" We're not talking about a player saying "Mind if I look it up real quick?"

We're talking about:


DM makes ruling
Player disagrees with ruling, and immediately goes for DMG.


I know I have been stressing this point, i.e. the context, and that's because this entire thread changes if we change the context.

Raum
2008-08-25, 06:40 PM
...but if it's just "Alright lads, put the DMG's away, you know why. If we really need a rule, we'll look it up." ...then I doubt it's going to be a problem.Agreed. That applies to any distraction.


At core, it's a respect thing.
As you said, it's a respect issue. Players should respect the GM and other players enough to pay attention to the game. GMs should respect the players enough to keep the game from being adversarial.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 07:04 PM
Or, just possibly, it's to prevent things such as this, where a single conversation by a persistant rules-lawyer happens to hijack the entire gaming session while the DM and player argue back and forth about why X rule is/isn't a rule. Such conversations could be handled outside the game, and not end up wasting the time of the rest of the group, who came to the session to play.

I'm sorry, what is all of your problem? I've never had wasted session time for rulings. If my players have an objection, they say: Hey, I think it's this: This is why.

And I say, okay show me the ruling, if this is going to take longer then 10 seconds I'm going to keep going.

Then they show me the ruling and I either explain it to them or go, yep, you were right.

Then we move on, even though we were moving on the whole time.


The bolded part tells me that you were approaching this from a tactics-first perspective. If you aren't, then I'm honestly perplexed at what exactly you are saying.

"But I need to know how strong it is to know how it affects my characters decisions." Tells me that the character is going to change what he does base on how the wind is going to affect him. Is a character able to look at or feel the affects of the wind and know that it is classified as "Strong Wind" or "Hurricane"? You seem to be saying yes.

1) Yes, characters can tell the difference between a wind that checks them and a wind that blows up into the air and hurls them against a wall. In fact, they can tell the difference between any two categories of wind, based on the effects it has on them. And they can extrapolate what the effect on their shots would be.

2) It has nothing to do with a tactic thing and everything to do with any kind of logical ruleset thing. Are you telling me that if your character could tell that shooting his arrow was going to have 0 effect, he would still do it anyway?


Furthermore, you seem to be making a case for the character to know the Tables in the books as character knowledge. I.E., my character knows that this is a strong wind and he knows that his chance to hit with a ranged weapon is going to be reduced by 10%. Am I understanding you correctly here or no?

Yes, those are the only real effects of the wind, and as such, any character who lived in that world would have gathered that information by the time they reached adulthood, unless you think that the standing outside in a windstorm isn't going to let you extrapolate instinctively to hurricane levels.


Its a lot easier to discuss/debate with someone when you are able to demonize them. This above quote isn't even remotely close to what I said. In a thread about if it is acceptable or not for a DM to tell his players not to look in the Dungeon Master's Guidebooks should a rules dispute occur, I said their input is great, after the game. If they say "I disagree with that rule." Fine, we'll double check it after rather than slowing down the whole game.

I don't need to demonize you, you do it yourself. Fine worthless is a slight over exaggeration. They are in fact not worth 5 seconds of your time. That's great, see me, I like to think that other peoples opinions about issues that affect them that they would only bring up if they had a reasonable reason to believe I was wrong are worth more then 5 seconds of my time.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-25, 07:11 PM
I don't think there's any legitimate basis for the DM trying to hide the rulebooks. At any time. The rules are not the DM's personal playset.

If the DM isn't doing things by the book, well, they can do that. There's no obligation to use them as-written, only to keep players aware of relevant deviations. Being mysterious about the rules, in my opinion, is simply an obnoxious encouragement for someone to go learn them behind your back.


We're talking about:


DM makes ruling
Player disagrees with ruling, and immediately goes for DMG.

...And so what? Is there a problem with the players knowing what the DMG says about it?

If the player thinks that the DMG conflicting with the DM automatically puts the DM in the wrong, that may be a problem. But it's not a problem because the player knows what the rules are, it's a problem because the player doesn't know what the DM is.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 07:12 PM
D&D has (or I should say, HAD since the later editions have seriously failed in this) always had a separation of DM and Player knowledge, even if that was only a cordial agreement since most players, eventually, probably knew the DMG front to back as well as the DM. This was fully realized in AD&D 1e with the inauguration of the PHB and the DMG and the MM. Players were, essentially, permitted to know everything in the PHB (though their characters might not be fluent in everything). It was understood that the DMG and MM were specifically off limits to players.

Why was this done? Simply put, the DM always had control over everything that was not specifically the domain of the players. ALWAYS. The PHB was open to modification as the DM saw fit before play, but once play started, it was essentially the common ground between the DM and the players. The DMG was more than anything a book loaded with advice. In fact, if you go back and read the 1e DMG, there really aren't as many rules in it as you might think as there are bits of esoteric trivia, advice, and general guidlines. All those tables in there were explicitely optional too.

I think this is the crux of it. Yes, in the olden times of yore, the DM was a God and no one but him mattered. That was because Gary Gygax was kinda a **** and I guess always had to DM his groups, and his influence carried on a lot.

But D&D has since involved into an actual cooperative game where the players are viewed as real people not toys for the DM to play with because he can't find a good AI.

If you want to go play, I AM GOD!!!!, go play 2ed. And then you'll have players who genuinely don't care if you are Arbitrary McMYWAY. But if you are playing 3.5 you have to accept that other people matter.

I mean look at your post, you say D&D is so great because the DM gets to make it different every time and add all these cool things.

Why can't the players make things different by having characters that actually matter to the story, such that different characters in the same story might play out entirely differently? Why cant they cooperate to make it fun and interesting each time?

The DM is not more important, more capable, smarter, more knowledgeable, or more capable of creating fun and cool things then any given player.

Matthew
2008-08-25, 07:13 PM
Hopefully, a DM doesn't even have to say this, though. Again, keep in mind the specific context of this thread. We're not talking about the group sitting around having a grand ole time and then a player takes a look in his DMG and then the DM yells at him.

We're not talking about a DM saying "I'm not sure, someone wanna look it up?" We're not talking about a player saying "Mind if I look it up real quick?"

We're talking about:


DM makes ruling
Player disagrees with ruling, and immediately goes for DMG.


I know I have been stressing this point, i.e. the context, and that's because this entire thread changes if we change the context.

True, of course. I wonder, though, if discussing the context is more important than the substance of the problem?



That was because Gary Gygax was kinda a **** and I guess always had to DM his groups, and his influence carried on a lot.

Knew him personally, did you?



But D&D has since involved into an actual cooperative game where the players are viewed as real people not toys for the DM to play with because he can't find a good AI.

Involved, has it? :smallamused:



If you want to go play, I AM GOD!!!!, go play 2ed. And then you'll have players who genuinely don't care if you are Arbitrary McMYWAY. But if you are playing 3.5 you have to accept that other people matter.

Thanks for the advice, I will give it all due consideration.



I mean look at your post, you say D&D is so great because the DM gets to make it different every time and add all these cool things.

Sounds good.



Why can't the players make things different by having characters that actually matter to the story, such that different characters in the same story might play out entirely differently? Why cant they cooperate to make it fun and interesting each time?

Why should they?



The DM is not more important, more capable, smarter, more knowledgeable, or more capable of creating fun and cool things then any given player.

Sounds like you might have a problem with authority centred games.

turkishproverb
2008-08-25, 07:44 PM
At one point I was going to join a game. I came in with a PHB and DMG, completed character sheet, and a splatbook related to the campaign. The DM told me to turn them all over. I said I wouldn't, pointed out the access to the PHB rules. He said turn the rest over, reached to take them from me.

I lifted them up like I was handing them to him, and broke his hand.

Granted, I have issues with physical contact, and that was the reason I got mad when he tried to grab them, but I was more than pissed at the "I don't wanna play fair" style of DMing you get out of people who hate being rules called (usually because they like to conveniently impose a double standard just to get a power kick). Simple fact is that in most games, things that would be obvious to someone in the real world can only be measured by knowing the mechanics. To suggest a usable alternative is, well, ridiculous. Rules of Fair play.

TheElfLord
2008-08-25, 07:45 PM
After reading this thread I have come to the conclusion that my gaming group is one of the most egalitarian out there. Everyone in our group has run at last one game, most have run multiple games and no one would be taken seriously if he asked people to hand over books.

We also have multiple simultaneous games, so one DM/ST may be using a resource to prepare for his game, even while the subjects of the book are appearing in another.

Our DM has very little extra power, he is more of a first among equals than the leader. As someone said earlier, the DM does more of the driving, but that doesn't elevate him above the other passengers in the car. We understand that both players and DM are essential to the game, a DM who throws his weight around will soon find himself without players, and therefore, without a game.

Of course, this system has developed because the core of the group were friends before they discovered rpgs and everyone else has become a friend prior to rping with the group. This doesn't not seem to be how most gaming groups were formed.

My advice to the OP, don't do it. You can ask players not to reference the DMG during the game, but asking them to physically relinquish possession of it is several steps too far. As others has stated its all about trust and communication. Talking to your players and working to get everyone on the same page for game expectations (lots of houserules, stick to RAW, lots of combat, no combat, high fantasy, grim and dirty etc.) will do wonders. Tyrannical DMing will result in you having no players.

Matthew
2008-08-25, 07:46 PM
I lifted them up like I was handing them to him, and broke his hand.

That's... a bit of an over reaction...

turkishproverb
2008-08-25, 07:47 PM
That's... a bit of an over reaction...

Yea, like I said, not all of it was his request. I have... issues with physical contact.

Matthew
2008-08-25, 07:50 PM
Yea, like I said, not all of it was his request. I have... issues with physical contact.

I take it he didn't call the cops on you? I think I might have done.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-25, 07:50 PM
If the player thinks that the DMG conflicting with the DM automatically puts the DM in the wrong, that may be a problem. But it's not a problem because the player knows what the rules are, it's a problem because the player doesn't know what the DM is.

This also pretty well sums it up. The situation, as I see it, is that the DM makes a ruling and the player goes to dispute it off the bat. Access to the book, or knowing the rules, is beside the point. On more than one occasion I've had DM's who made what I thought was a rules mistake and consulted the book quickly as things went along. I looked to be sure my recollection was correct. didn't stop the game and jump in to correct the DM. I just noticed I remembered the rule correctly or incorrectly, closed the book and went on with the rule the DM was using.

Access to the books and rules does not equate with being a jerk about them. One doesn't need any books for that anyway. They can do it all on their own.


I lifted them up like I was handing them to him, and broke his hand.

That was probably a bit much. :smalleek: He did need to at least see your character sheet...


Simple fact is that in most games, things that would be obvious to someone in the real world can only be measured by knowing the mechanics. To suggest a usable alternative is, well, ridiculous. Rules of Fair play.

This can even be true when it comes to campagin source books. If you think I memorized the main export of my characters home town in FR you have another thing coming. I may however, totally randomly, want to know it for RP purposes on the spot and my character certianly would, even though I don't. If I want it for a joke, needing to ask the DM's permission and explain what I wanted to look up and why, would certianly spoil the fun.


I take it he didn't call the cops on you? I think I might have done.

Me too actually...

turkishproverb
2008-08-25, 07:53 PM
I take it he didn't call the cops on you? I think I might have done.

He didn't. He'd been warned not to touch me, to the point of being told I could react severely, and I paid the medical (and left anyway). And I was a minor at the time, so that might've effected the decision.

Matthew
2008-08-25, 07:54 PM
Not really. He'd been warned not to touch me, to the point of being told I could react severely, and I paid the medical (and left anyway)

What do you mean "not really"? Did he "kind of"?

turkishproverb
2008-08-25, 07:56 PM
What do you mean "not really"? Did he "kind of"?

Check the edit. I was a minor and he didn't. I'm sure my giving him all the cash I had on me helped though.

Matthew
2008-08-25, 07:59 PM
Check the edit. I was a minor and he didn't. I'm sure my giving him all the cash I had on me helped though.

Yeah, I might not of if you were a minor. I presume your parents informed him that you weren't to be touched?

TheElfLord
2008-08-25, 08:01 PM
He didn't. He'd been warned not to touch me, to the point of being told I could react severely

Did he realize this meant things you were holding as well? And just to clarify, he never actually touched you right? You assaulted him because it looked like he was going to touch something you were holding?

turkishproverb
2008-08-25, 08:02 PM
Yeah, I might not of if you were a minor. I presume your parents informed him that you weren't to be touched?

Ohh yea. They were very explicit on that. They didn't mention it was their fault, but they mentioned I wasn't to be touched.


And when they found out what I did, I ended up limping for a week anyway. I think I got the short end of the straw there. :smallmad:


Did he realize this meant things you were holding as well? And just to clarify, he never actually touched you right? You assaulted him because it looked like he was going to touch something you were holding?

Sentence cut off. He was warned I could react severely if it looked like he was trying to take something from me. I was really screwed up. I admit it.

Curmudgeon
2008-08-25, 08:10 PM
Not all the rules for playing the game are in the PH. Some are in the DMG. For instance, it would be ridiculous to forbid use of the DMG to someone whose character has a level of Shadowdancer -- that PrC is in the DMG, and the player absolutely must use the book to play the character.

I can't think of a single good reason to forbid access to the DMG during play. However, access to every bit of information in the Monster Manual should require first making the appropriate Knowledge check:


DC = 10 + HD + 5 x (# of characteristics)

So the party sees some large creature. You call for Knowledge: Arcana rolls, and if the best one is in the 42-46 range you could tell them:
It's called an Androsphinx.
It has a Rake attack
It can Track.
It has a Roar attack.
It can Fly. Do they get to open the MM to read more? No, because they didn't earn that extra information with a high enough skill check. They'll have to find out that an Androsphinx has a Flyby Attack the hard way.

Matthew
2008-08-25, 08:13 PM
Ohh yea. They were very explicit on that. They didn't mention it was their fault, but they mentioned I wasn't to be touched.

And when they found out what I did, I ended up limping for a week anyway. I think I got the short end of the straw there. :smallmad:

Sentence cut off. He was warned I could react severely if it looked like he was trying to take something from me. I was really screwed up. I admit it.
Sounds like a bad situation all round.

turkishproverb
2008-08-25, 08:21 PM
Sounds like a bad situation all round.

Most definitely Fortunately, I stopped reliably hurting people for trying to touch me. Still don't like being touched though...

only1doug
2008-08-26, 03:37 AM
I Have to say that asking people to hand over their property is always going to be asking for trouble, even from people without psychological aversions to doing so.

If i were GMing and considered it to be a problem i would ask people to put their books away (as in put into a bag) or to the side and not to reference them during the session. Failure to comply gets you told off, consistent failure gets you invited not to play any more.

I've never had it be a problem though, my players are welcome to check their books as much as they like (not to the extent of looking up monster stats while i'm attacking with one) but interrupting play to argue rules had better be important...

nagora
2008-08-26, 04:32 AM
All rules, including Rule 0, are subservient to Rule -1. This is not an opinion, this is a fact that does not change no matter who is playing the game.
The difference between Rule 0 and what you're calling Rule -1 is that the former is an actual rule of the game while the latter is a social rule. While you're playing, Rule 0 is the end of the line. If you're not having fun, you can leave (hopefully after discussing what the problem is with the DM). That's all "Rule -1" does for you.

The desire to turn this into a black and white issue (ie, If the DM doesn't listen to rules lawyers then s/he thinks the players are scum) is not helpful or accurate.

Obviously a good DM will listen to and answer queries from players. But the rules - ALL the rules, not just DMG ones - are just fluff intended to help with making the gameworld work and be fun and interesting. If the fluff (rules) gets in the way of the crunch (roleplaying the DM's world) then the fluff absolutely can and should be discarded without any qualms.

There is absolutely no requirement on the DM to follow the rules except player expectation. A DM who does not handle player expectation is going to find themselves without players fairly quickly. And deservedly so.

Above all, characters know nothing about rules. They know that high winds disturb arrow flights and some, such as druids, have specific knowledge that relates to their spells in a more systemised way. But characters do not know things like hit points, levels, hit dice, armour class of monsters, character classes of strangers in pubs, to-hit penalties or bonuses, special defenses/attacks of creatures they've never encountered, air speed and manoeuvrability classes, saving throw scores of opponents etc.

As such, a player not only does not have a right to look such things up in play but actually should be prevented from doing so. A player who looks up such information is cheating while a player who attempts to quote them to a DM after the DM has said that s/he is doing it another way is being a pain in the neck and should be excluded if they persist. In that context, players having DMGs or MM is counter-productive for the most part.

Saph
2008-08-26, 05:38 AM
I think in 4e, it's pretty much a moot point, because the content of the DMG is all but worthless anyway. There's absolutely nothing in there a player is going to get any use from, so I'd have to question their intelligence in even bringing it to the session in the first place. :P

On the other hand, there's no way I'd hand over any books I'd brought to the DM unless I really, really liked him. What if he spills something on them or forgets to give them back?

- Saph

Tormsskull
2008-08-26, 06:02 AM
That's great, see me, I like to think that other peoples opinions about issues that affect them that they would only bring up if they had a reasonable reason to believe I was wrong are worth more then 5 seconds of my time.


Right, and you've made it quite clear that anyone who doesn't agree with you is on a powertrip, and that all editions before 3e were about DM = God Players = playthings. The fact that you frame every argument in the EXTREME shows that you have little to stand on.



...And so what? Is there a problem with the players knowing what the DMG says about it?


Not at all. But in most game situations, the DM makes a ruling and then keeps advancing the plot/storyline/flow of the game, etc. If a DM says "Here's what I think, but I need to go grab a pizza real quick" then sure, players could look up the rule, and then upon the DM's return they can say "Just FYI, here's what the book says, not sure if you knew that or not."

In a more common situation, the DM makes a ruling and the player stops paying attention to the combat/dialogue/description/whatever to check the rule. That's distracting and disrespectful.



True, of course. I wonder, though, if discussing the context is more important than the substance of the problem?


Well, when giving advice to a poster, it often is. The root problem may be that the group has a lack of trust on all sides, but I'd be willing to bet you a shiny penny that the OPer already knew that the moment his player grabbed his DMG to double check the rules.



Not all the rules for playing the game are in the PH. Some are in the DMG. For instance, it would be ridiculous to forbid use of the DMG to someone whose character has a level of Shadowdancer -- that PrC is in the DMG, and the player absolutely must use the book to play the character.


The PrCs are in there because they are optional. If the DM decides not to use them, the players never need even consider them.

Gralamin
2008-08-26, 06:09 AM
The PrCs are in there because they are optional. If the DM decides not to use them, the players never need even consider them.

Right, but what Curmudgeon was talking about was "If your character already has a level in PrC X, taking away book Y which contains PrC X stops you from playing your character." Which is quite different then saying "If the DM decides not to use PrC's then they don't need to look up the PrC."


In a more common situation, the DM makes a ruling and the player stops paying attention to the combat/dialogue/description/whatever to check the rule. That's distracting and disrespectful.
It depends on the circumstances. If its the middle of combat, and a player is taking a bit of time to choose what he'll do, and your at the far end of the initiative order, then taking the time to do a 30 second rule look up is fine. If its a more complicated question then that, then marking it down on a sheet of paper or whatever, and taking a look at the end of the session is a better solution.

nagora
2008-08-26, 06:10 AM
The PrCs are in there because they are optional. If the DM decides not to use them, the players never need even consider them.
Probably best to photocopy the pages in question and hand them out, now that I think about it.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 07:09 AM
Well, when giving advice to a poster, it often is. The root problem may be that the group has a lack of trust on all sides, but I'd be willing to bet you a shiny penny that the OPer already knew that the moment his player grabbed his DMG to double check the rules.

I wonder if he shouldn't just point to the page of the DMG that says "If you don't know a rule, just make a ruling and move on. Look up the actual rule after the game."

It always amuses me to see how totally at variance are the ways people play D20 with the way it appears to be written.

[edit] Actually, looking again at the DMG there's a lot of contradictory information on that score. All this talk of Rules Mastery is really transparent in the wake of that Monte Cook article.

nagora
2008-08-26, 07:21 AM
[edit] Actually, looking again at the DMG there's a lot of contradictory information on that score. All this talk of Rules Mastery is really transparent in the wake of that Monte Cook article.
Can you expand on this (or link to something)? I don't grok.

hamlet
2008-08-26, 08:08 AM
I think this is the crux of it. Yes, in the olden times of yore, the DM was a God and no one but him mattered. That was because Gary Gygax was kinda a **** and I guess always had to DM his groups, and his influence carried on a lot.

But D&D has since involved into an actual cooperative game where the players are viewed as real people not toys for the DM to play with because he can't find a good AI.

If you want to go play, I AM GOD!!!!, go play 2ed. And then you'll have players who genuinely don't care if you are Arbitrary McMYWAY. But if you are playing 3.5 you have to accept that other people matter.

I mean look at your post, you say D&D is so great because the DM gets to make it different every time and add all these cool things.

Why can't the players make things different by having characters that actually matter to the story, such that different characters in the same story might play out entirely differently? Why cant they cooperate to make it fun and interesting each time?

The DM is not more important, more capable, smarter, more knowledgeable, or more capable of creating fun and cool things then any given player.

Yeah, I think that this post of yours proves that you have no actual clue about what you are speaking.

Jayabalard
2008-08-26, 08:34 AM
Can you expand on this (or link to something)? I don't grok.I vaguely recall that he said something to the effect that 3e was designed to reward players for mastering the rules. I don't have a link though.


Yeah, I think that this post of yours proves that you have no actual clue about what you are speaking.Sounds like he either didn't actually play AD&D or had some really crappy DMs.

hamlet
2008-08-26, 08:49 AM
I vaguely recall that he said something to the effect that 3e was designed to reward players for mastering the rules. I don't have a link though.

That was, if I recall, the gist of the article, that much of the game of D20 had less to do with the actual adventure at hand and much more to do with mastering the rules and learning how to optimize. It was really one of the most explicit things that soured me on the entire concept of D20 and most modern game design.

That said, I will say that Monte Cook's career was a bit of a mixed bag. There are times when, with somebody standing behind him holding the stupid stick, he could produce some really incredible stuff even if he was never able to pull back from his fascination with the meta-game. Ptolus, Arcana Evolved, and Dead Gods were prime examples of this.



Sounds like he either didn't actually play AD&D or had some really crappy DMs.

Or, as I find is more and more common today, that his only experience at all with AD&D is with WOTC marketing.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 09:07 AM
Can you expand on this (or link to something)? I don't grok.

Aye: The Reason for Imbalance in D20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809)

nagora
2008-08-26, 09:14 AM
Aye: The Reason for Imbalance in D20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809)
Hmm. Well, I was expecting my respect for Monte to go down, but it turns out it was at zero already. I may need to introduce "zero star" to separate cases like Cook and Williams.

Saithis Bladewing
2008-08-26, 09:32 AM
If the DM asked me to hand over my DMG, my response would be "fair enough." Honestly, the DMG is just what it says: a Guide. It's the ultimate decision of the DM what happens. Now, if something in the PHB is being arbitrarily changed, then yes, there's opportunity to argue with it.

Kompera
2008-08-26, 10:29 AM
I now want to contact all my players and tell them that on the days I will be running to leave their DMGs and MMs at home, or to hand them to me at the very start of our gaming sessions if they must bring them.
It's fine to forbid access to the MM, that is largely a book containing specifics of game challenges, which the characters may not be familiar with. But rules which impact the players ability to run their characters, which can be spread throughout many source books such as the DMG, should be available to the players always.

If my GM forbid access to those rules, I'd find a different game.

Why? Because you seem to not want to play by the rules, and seem to be more concerned that you are not contradicted for not following the rules. Well, tough cookies. If you want to run a game in any given system, you have a responsibility to understand that system. Your solution here is an easy one, become more familiar with the rules. That is a common burden for GMs, they need to be more familiar with how the game works than the players do. The players can be specialists, and understand in great detail what their characters are capable of. The GM needs to know all of that, and also all of the rules under which his NPCs and the environment will operate.

The rules define what the players can do. Knowing the rules allows the players to get into their character's heads better, and understand that this mass of stats, class abilities, and items is capable of performing action X but might be advised to attempt action Y only in extremis. Knowing the rules lets a player better immerse themselves in the game world, which since it operates by different rules than the real world is already separate from the player by that barrier. If the rules are variable, the players understanding of the game world will be variable. And that is never a good thing.

If you haven't advanced a copy of your house rule to the players, then you should be playing by the rules. I'll agree that there can be situations where this need not be the case, but those cases should be very rare, certainly not an every play session occurrence. It should be the case in the vast majority of the situations that the rules can be adhered to without the game suffering, if you think about it for a while. The players should never feel as though the world is so arbitrary that at any point they can be essentially notified that the physics of yesterday no longer apply, and that an unknown physics will apply for an arbitrary amount of time. Oh, and this arbitrary change typically occurs in the midst of combat or some other meaningful game event. Suck fest!

Don't let the rules ruin your game. But in all cases possible you should play by the rules. If you dislike the taste of some particular rule, get used to saying "I dislike the taste of this particular rule. We'll play by that rule this time, but I reserve the right to make my own house rule for the future." Unless the situation is so key to your campaign setting and flow of play that it simply must be arbitrarily ruled differently on the spot, this should suffice. This also gives you the opportunity to think more at length about the rule in question and how you'd prefer to have it implemented. Rules changes made off the cuff tend to suck a lot. And if you have to reverse your rules made off the cuff because they suck a lot, you lose credibility and further disrupt the possibility of player immersion within your setting.

This reserving of GM rights preserves both your ability to run the game you want to run, without subjecting your players to what can't help but seem like random, arbitrary, and whimsical disruptions of their ability to comprehend the world you have designed for them to play in. And unless you are running "Chaos World: Where the rules can change at any time, so get used to it" that can only ruin the players immersion in your setting and make them resent your arbitrary rulings.

In summary: Rule 0 should only be applied in advance, unless the situation is one in which the game will be disrupted. If Rule 0 is applied during play it should be because it's important to the game, and not just because some minor detail offended the sensibilities of the GM. Those things can much better be fixed in between game sessions, without ruining your players immersion in your game setting.

nagora
2008-08-26, 11:06 AM
It's fine to forbid access to the MM, that is largely a book containing specifics of game challenges, which the characters may not be familiar with. But rules which impact the players ability to run their characters, which can be spread throughout many source books such as the DMG, should be available to the players always.
Disagree.


If my GM forbid access to those rules, I'd find a different game.

Why? Because you seem to not want to play by the rules, and seem to be more concerned that you are not contradicted for not following the rules.
That's one way of characterising it. But there's nothing wrong with either.


Well, tough cookies. If you want to run a game in any given system, you have a responsibility to understand that system.
There's no reason to believe the OP does not understand the rules.


Your solution here is an easy one, become more familiar with the rules. That is a common burden for GMs, they need to be more familiar with how the game works than the players do.
Largely true, but not relevent to the question of running an interesting roleplaying game. The fluff (rules) is subserviant to the crunch (roleplaying).


The players can be specialists, and understand in great detail what their characters are capable of.
I'd not sure I agree with "great detail". Does Conan seem to understand in great detail what he is capable of? Or Aragorn? Or any heroic character? In general, such characters DO, they do not analyse in depth.


The GM needs to know all of that, and also all of the rules under which his NPCs and the environment will operate.
True; but s/he is free to select a mixture of the printed rules and their own.


The rules define what the players can do.
Not in any good RPG; at least, they should only define some of what the players can do, otherwise there's no need for a DM.


Knowing the rules allows the players to get into their character's heads better, and understand that this mass of stats, class abilities, and items is capable of performing action X but might be advised to attempt action Y only in extremis.
Sometimes. Mostly, it's better if the players think of their characters as people instead of spreadsheets. However, some of the latter is inevitable in any game system. The trick is to try to minimise it.


Knowing the rules lets a player better immerse themselves in the game world,
Quite the opposite. Fretting about rules breaks immersion more than it helps. A good DM is what makes immersion.


which since it operates by different rules than the real world is already separate from the player by that barrier. If the rules are variable, the players understanding of the game world will be variable. And that is never a good thing.
This is true, but again you are assuming that "consistancy" means "consistancy with the DMG".


If you haven't advanced a copy of your house rule to the players, then you should be playing by the rules.
Only if those houserules are in an area coverd by the PHB, or are new rulings which contradict other of your own previous rulings in that campaign.


I'll agree that there can be situations where this need not be the case, but those cases should be very rare, certainly not an every play session occurrence.
I expect houseruling to be something that affects almost every session.


It should be the case in the vast majority of the situations that the rules can be adhered to without the game suffering, if you think about it for a while. The players should never feel as though the world is so arbitrary that at any point they can be essentially notified that the physics of yesterday no longer apply, and that an unknown physics will apply for an arbitrary amount of time. Oh, and this arbitrary change typically occurs in the midst of combat or some other meaningful game event. Suck fest!
As above, this is true but unconnected to the issue of sticking to the DMG.


Don't let the rules ruin your game. But in all cases possible you should play by the rules. If you dislike the taste of some particular rule, get used to saying "I dislike the taste of this particular rule. We'll play by that rule this time, but I reserve the right to make my own house rule for the future." Unless the situation is so key to your campaign setting and flow of play that it simply must be arbitrarily ruled differently on the spot, this should suffice. This also gives you the opportunity to think more at length about the rule in question and how you'd prefer to have it implemented. Rules changes made off the cuff tend to suck a lot.
Depends on the situation, the system and the DM.


And if you have to reverse your rules made off the cuff because they suck a lot, you lose credibility and further disrupt the possibility of player immersion within your setting.
True.


This reserving of GM rights preserves both your ability to run the game you want to run, without subjecting your players to what can't help but seem like random, arbitrary, and whimsical disruptions of their ability to comprehend the world you have designed for them to play in. And unless you are running "Chaos World: Where the rules can change at any time, so get used to it" that can only ruin the players immersion in your setting and make them resent your arbitrary rulings.
See above.


In summary: Rule 0 should only be applied in advance, unless the situation is one in which the game will be disrupted. If Rule 0 is applied during play it should be because it's important to the game, and not just because some minor detail offended the sensibilities of the GM. Those things can much better be fixed in between game sessions, without ruining your players immersion in your game setting.
Yes. Rule 0 and consistancy are key items. What's printed in the DMG, not so much, and it should never be a reason for the DM doing something that seems wrong in their campaign.

I honestly can't see how you could run an RPG that way, or why you would want to even if you could.

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 12:13 PM
Largely true, but not relevent to the question of running an interesting roleplaying game. The fluff (rules) is subserviant to the crunch (roleplaying).

Okay, 1) Most of your post is, "I disagree but have no reason." This doesn't exactly do much to sway people. You can say that people should see their characters as characters not spreadsheets, but that doesn't change the fact that what your character can and cannot do is defined by the spreadsheet, not by what you think. So your character cannot take any actions at all if you don't know what is on the spreadsheet. And if the DM does not allow you to know the rules, then you are effectively navigating blind.

Unless your character is blind, you should be able to know the rules.

2)No matter how many times you misuse these words they don't change the meaning.

Crunch does not mean most important thing, or roleplaying, it means mechanics, specifically those things which can be number crunched.

Fluff does not mean rules, or the less important thing, it means story, setting, everything that does not have a specific mechanical representation and therefore cannot be crunched.

Stop purposely misusing words to deceive.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 12:17 PM
Okay, 1) Most of your post is, "I disagree but have no reason." This doesn't exactly do much to sway people. You can say that people should see their characters as characters not spreadsheets, but that doesn't change the fact that what your character can and cannot do is defined by the spreadsheet, not by what you think. So your character cannot take any actions at all if you don't know what is on the spreadsheet. And if the DM does not allow you to know the rules, then you are effectively navigating blind.

Unless your character is blind, you should be able to know the rules.

2)No matter how many times you misuse these words they don't change the meaning.

Crunch does not mean most important thing, or roleplaying, it means mechanics, specifically those things which can be number crunched.

Fluff does not mean rules, or the less important thing, it means story, setting, everything that does not have a specific mechanical representation and therefore cannot be crunched.

Stop purposely misusing words to deceive.

I could say very similar things about your line of argument (in fact, I just did).

People play Dungeons & Dragons in various different ways, and they have different expectations and reactions, all for different reasons. It's part of the fun. Your definition of "crunch" and "fluff" may not accord with somebody elses', but that doesn't make them wrong, since niether you nor they you are the arbitrator of the meaning of the terms. They're metaphors.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 12:19 PM
Nagora, in most cases heroic characters in fiction should lose. They are able to win because the writer throws them all kinds of luck and plot devices at critical points. This is not the case in most RPGs. Or maybe it is, when you DM them...I don't know how much you like fudging. But the default, well established by the DMG, is that the players will be the stronger side in most or all of their conflicts.

Aragorn didn't win because he was just that good. PCs do. Which means, in turn, that they may need to actually have some idea of how good they are.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 12:21 PM
Aragorn didn't win because he was just that good. PCs do. Which means, in turn, that they may need to actually have some idea of how good they are.
Eh? Aragorn didn't win on his own merits, but what he achieved by his own hand was indeed because he was just that good.

Nobody achieves anything without the "right" circumstances (whether in literature or real life). The nature of a game where random dice are rolled to determine success is that the circumstances may not be right.

Kompera
2008-08-26, 12:32 PM
Disagree.Fine. Have any specifics to relay, or just unhappy with my point?

That's one way of characterising it. But there's nothing wrong with either.I obviously disagree. The game, any game, is played by a group of peers. And the game, any game, has a set of rules. All players of the game, regardless of their role in the game, should know or be able to access the rules. Not access information to which they are not privy, such as just how many Hit Dice that Frost Giant has, but any rule which involves their character and her abilities.
The GM should know the game rules, backwards and forwards. Including both the published rules and his own interpretations/house rules. But if these aren't communicated to the players, or the players are forbidden to access them, then it's like playing the pilot of a 747 and not knowing the "rules" for wing lift, engine speed, wind shear, or how fast things fall. These are things which the character would be intimately familiar with. but which the player might very well need to reference, since the player hasn't spent 20 years in the Air Force and then signed up as an airline pilot, but the character has.
The good GM tries to create a game setting in which the players can feel comfortable, as if they have actually grown up there and they actually know how things work. This understanding comes from the rules, and the rules need to be consistent to reinforce this understanding.

There's no reason to believe the OP does not understand the rules.Since his post is largely concerned with how to handle his players reaching for the DMG in order to contradict him on how the rules work, then it is clear that your statement is false.

Largely true, but not relevent to the question of running an interesting roleplaying game. The fluff (rules) is subserviant to the crunch (roleplaying).We will have to agree to disagree about how the rules are defined by you as being 'fluff'. Bottom line: The rules define how to play the game. If the players don't know how to play the game, because the GM forbids them access to the rules, this is a Bad Thing(tm). Immersion requires understanding. Immersion should be a goal in any RPG. Therefore, any philosophy of rules which does not support immersion is a Bad Thing(tm).

I'd not sure I agree with "great detail". Does Conan seem to understand in great detail what he is capable of? Or Aragorn? Or any heroic character? In general, such characters DO, they do not analyse in depth.Yes, they do. D&D involves a lot of abstractions. But within the framework of those abstractions the players should and need to be aware of the capabilities of their characters. Were you, in real life, to take up archery, you would at every stage of your advancement from rank novice to skilled archer, understand your chances of hitting any given target. Because you would have observed it in person and come to understand your chances. Not absolutely, but the DMG does not give these values absolutely, either. These are the things the player can't understand about their character unless the GM makes this understanding possible. And this understanding requires access to the rules.



True; but s/he is free to select a mixture of the printed rules and their own.Of course. I allowed as much. I merely said that any changes should be advanced before play, and that changes during play should only occur where it was vital to the game setting. This reinforces the suspension of disbelief, and makes the game setting feel more real. Your position fails to reinforce suspension of disbelief, and sacrifices a real feel to an arbitrary chaos of random rules rulings on the spot.



Not in any good RPG; at least, they should only define some of what the players can do, otherwise there's no need for a DM.Hahaha! In every good RPG the rules define very clearly what the players can do. The GM is needed to establish the setting and to adjudicate the interactions of the players within that setting, within the boundaries established by the rules. The GM is not needed to make arbitrary rules changes in the midst of play, except in the very, very rare occasion that this becomes vital to the plot or game setting.

Sometimes. Mostly, it's better if the players think of their characters as people instead of spreadsheets. However, some of the latter is inevitable in any game system. The trick is to try to minimise it.You missed my point entirely. The character sheet is just what you describe: A set of stats, class abilities, and items. The player can look at this all day long and not come to understand what the capabilities of this character are. But the character, since he lives in the game setting, knows very well what he is capable of. The rules allow the player to come to understand this as well. Deny the player the access to those rules which allow them to understand what their character is capable of and you've spoiled immersion, ruined suspension of disbelief.

Quite the opposite. Fretting about rules breaks immersion more than it helps. A good DM is what makes immersion.Quite the opposite. Knowing the rules facilitates immersion. The GM can further reinforce that immersion by setting up game scenarios which operate within the rules. Or she can spoil immersion by failing to follow through on the 'promise' made by the rules which led the players to believe that they could count on action X to produce result Y as the rules have laid out.

This is true, but again you are assuming that "consistancy" means "consistancy with the DMG".Read instead: Consistency within the game setting as defined by the rules. This is not a hard thing. You read a rule, and you expect that it applies unless you are notified in advance that it operates other than as described. You're playing a version of D&D. The rules of the game tell you that you can take X action and expect Y result. Consistency is following through on this expectation.

Only if those houserules are in an area coverd by the PHB, or are new rulings which contradict other of your own previous rulings in that campaign.No, no, a thousand times, no. You've invited a group of people to play in your version X D&D game. Any house rules need to be communicated to the players. D&D is an ongoing game, there is no reason to 'spring' a bad taste on your players when they finally stumble across your house rule which sucks so much as to cause them all to quit in disgust. House rules need to be communicated, because the default understanding must be "I was invited to play D&D version X, therefore the rules of the game are going to be according to D&D version X".
All else is madness.



I expect houseruling to be something that affects almost every session.That may be the case. Again, if the house rules are communicated ahead of time, this is of no consequence. But any game which implements arbitrary rulings on minor points in every game session is a poor one. The players are left with no clear footing, they don't know which rules apply and which do not, they can't be certain that they understand their character's capabilities. And that sucks. If you are making fresh house rules every session, you are introducing a level of arbitration which prevents the players from getting to know their characters and being able to confidently state: I can succeed at action X, I might succeed at action Y, but I can't hope to succeed at action Z." They will never have a clue as to what they are capable of, because the GM has decided that he needs to arbitrarily change the game rules in each and every game session.

And that's a lot of suck.



As above, this is true but unconnected to the issue of sticking to the DMG.Um, it's very connected to the issue of sticking to the rules.



Depends on the situation, the system and the DM.No, it does not. If the GM is unable to resist sticking in a hand and can't resist modifying the rules in every game session, then the game will suck, for reasons amply described above.




Yes. Rule 0 and consistancy are key items. What's printed in the DMG, not so much, and it should never be a reason for the DM doing something that seems wrong in their campaign.

I honestly can't see how you could run an RPG that way, or why you would want to even if you could.You can't see why you would want to run a game where the GM is not an arbitrary rule changer, but follows the rules except in the very rare cases in which it matters so much to the flow of the game and the game setting that some arbitrary ruling must be implemented? How is that hard to understand, and what do you suggest in place of it? Chaos World(tm), where the rules change on the fly in every game session, and good luck to you all?

I honestly can't see how you could run an RPG that way, or why you would want to even if you could.

My philosophy boils down to a RPG Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. That means make no changes to the rules during a game session unless you absolutely must. This best enables the players to understand the game world and how it should operate. If you must make a change, try in all cases to do it between sessions, and advance copies of this change to the players. In the case where you absolutely, positively have to implement a change on the fly, be prepared to review it and effect modifications in between game sessions.

nagora
2008-08-26, 12:35 PM
Okay, 1) Most of your post is, "I disagree but have no reason." This doesn't exactly do much to sway people. You can say that people should see their characters as characters not spreadsheets, but that doesn't change the fact that what your character can and cannot do is defined by the spreadsheet
No it's not: it's defined by the DM. That's the core issue here. You think it's defined by some improbably comprehensive ruleset. I think it's defined by the DM, in fact that's the DM's primary job.

Crunch does not mean most important thing, or roleplaying, it means mechanics, specifically those things which can be number crunched.

Fluff does not mean rules, or the less important thing, it means story, setting, everything that does not have a specific mechanical representation and therefore cannot be crunched.

Stop purposely misusing words to deceive.
The terms were invented by rules lawyers to give the misleading appearance that rules are more important than setting. That's why they picked such loaded terms.

"Fluff" is a derogatory word commonly used all around the English-speaking world for something that does not matter. Well, in this case the stuff that does not matter is the printed rules. They are (hopefully) useful guidelines, but if it comes down to "Try an interesting idea, or stick to the rules", then the interesting idea should win every time if you are anything like a good DM.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 12:44 PM
Eh? Aragorn didn't win on his own merits, but what he achieved by his own hand was indeed because he was just that good.As far as my poor recollection goes, this is true. But does that actually cover much of anything important? Perhaps some of his feats of leadership count...

Nobody achieves anything without the "right" circumstances (whether in literature or real life). The nature of a game where random dice are rolled to determine success is that the circumstances may not be right.
Well, yes. But in heroic fiction, in general, you have every reason to believe the circumstances aren't right. The hero does something which has no good reason to work (it may be the right thing for them to do, that's a separate issue), and then they roll as many consecutive 20s as necessary to pull it off.

In D&D, you have every reason to believe the conditions are right. PCs mostly go into battle knowing they have the enemy outweighed by a factor of 2-4. At higher levels this may be somewhat disguised by the concealed-carry nature of class levels, but is no less true. If they fail, it's one of very bad luck, very poor play, or DM miscalculation.

Most literary analogies work quite poorly for this.

No it's not: it's defined by the DM. That's the core issue here. You think it's defined by some improbably comprehensive ruleset. I think it's defined by the DM, in fact that's the DM's primary job.
Then, as I believe has been questioned by others, how are the players supposed to know what they can do? And unless you're also building their characters, how are they supposed to make their character able to do what they want it to, when they're not permitted to know what it takes to do that?

Matthew
2008-08-26, 12:56 PM
As far as my poor recollection goes, this is true. But does that actually cover much of anything important? Perhaps some of his feats of leadership count...

Sure, there's the whole Army of the Dead bit, where he went off on a mini quest to turn the tide of battle at Minas Tirith, and he apparently covertly fought the Enemy for decades before the story (capturing Golum for one thing). Then there's the period during which he is the only one protecting ring bearer, driving off the Nazgul on Weathertop by himself. As a member of the fellowship his feats of combat under the misty mountains and in the wilderness should by no means be overlooked. Aragorn is no character constantly saved by deux ex machina, as his prowess at the siege of Helm's Deep and during the battles taht follow demonstrate. His battle of will against Sauron through the palantir was probably his greatest feat of strength, though.



Well, yes. But in heroic fiction, in general, you have every reason to believe the circumstances aren't right. The hero does something which has no good reason to work (it may be the right thing for them to do, that's a separate issue), and then they roll as many consecutive 20s as necessary to pull it off.

In D&D, you have every reason to believe the conditions are right. PCs mostly go into battle knowing they have the enemy outweighed by a factor of 2-4. At higher levels this may be somewhat disguised by the concealed-carry nature of class levels, but is no less true. If they fail, it's one of very bad luck, very poor play, or DM miscalculation.

Most literary analogies work quite poorly for this.

Problem is, this is an assumption about the nature of Dungeons & Dragons and what you may or may not expect from it as a game. There are different modes of play, some of them are better than others, depending on what you want out of the experience. Significant risk, or minimised risk, depends on the group.



Then, as I believe has been questioned by others, how are the players supposed to know what they can do? And unless you're also building their characters, how are they supposed to make their character able to do what they want it to, when they're not permitted to know what it takes to do that?
It's really very simple. The DM handles the rules, you declare what actions you want your character to take. The DM may say there's X probability of Y outcome, if there is a dangerous decision to be made. Again, though, it is a different mode of play (and one that contrasts strongly with the default D20 version).

hamlet
2008-08-26, 12:59 PM
It strikes me that one of the fundamental points of disagreement here is a basic difference of opinion on the function and purpose of the DM.

I'd honestly be interested in exploring how the role of the DM is perceived across ideological borders here.

nagora
2008-08-26, 01:05 PM
I'll try not to repeat myself too much:

Fine. Have any specifics to relay, or just unhappy with my point?
Just that there is an implied contract between the DM and the players as regards the PHB, but not as regards the MM and DMG.


I obviously disagree. The game, any game, is played by a group of peers. And the game, any game, has a set of rules. All players of the game, regardless of their role in the game, should know or be able to access the rules. Not access information to which they are not privy, such as just how many Hit Dice that Frost Giant has, but any rule which involves their character and her abilities.
Where do you draw the line? Do you tell fighters how many plusses their new magic sword has? Do you tell them the specific penalties for climbing a wall before they try or do you use subjective terminology ("It looks very smooth; not many handholds")? Do you allow them to always buy equipment at list price just because that's what's printed?



The good GM tries to create a game setting in which the players can feel comfortable, as if they have actually grown up there and they actually know how things work.
Yes.


This understanding comes from the rules
No.


Since his post is largely concerned with how to handle his players reaching for the DMG in order to contradict him on how the rules work, then it is clear that your statement is false.
No. I said there was no reason to believe that the OP does not understand the rules and I stick to that - he may well understand them and be choosing to ignore them.


We will have to agree to disagree about how the rules are defined by you as being 'fluff'.
I beleive that is why the term was coined - to make rules seem more important than they are.


Bottom line: The rules define how to play the game.
Bottom line: the DM defines how to play the game using some sub-set of the suggested rules.


Immersion requires understanding.
No, it requires sympathy with the character and imagination. Both are helped by understanding but can be achieved without it.


Immersion should be a goal in any RPG. Therefore, any philosophy of rules which does not support immersion is a Bad Thing(tm).
Okay.


Yes, they do. D&D involves a lot of abstractions. But within the framework of those abstractions the players should and need to be aware of the capabilities of their characters. Were you, in real life, to take up archery, you would at every stage of your advancement from rank novice to skilled archer, understand your chances of hitting any given target.
I have done this and I can testify that you are wrong. I have no idea why I missed targets on one day that I could hit the next. I have a vague idea of what's hard to hit, but not in a way that I could put exact integer values to it.


Of course. I allowed as much. I merely said that any changes should be advanced before play, and that changes during play should only occur where it was vital to the game setting.
Sure. But changes to DMG rules that have not been used in play in this campaign before do not need to be explained. Ever.


This reinforces the suspension of disbelief, and makes the game setting feel more real. Your position fails to reinforce suspension of disbelief, and sacrifices a real feel to an arbitrary chaos of random rules rulings on the spot.
I sometimes wonder if you read the bits in my posts about consistancy.


Hahaha! In every good RPG the rules define very clearly what the players can do.
No, they don't. A good RPG doesn't even try. The DM's there for that reason - every designer knows that what you are asking for is simply impossible.


Or she can spoil immersion by failing to follow through on the 'promise' made by the rules which led the players to believe that they could count on action X to produce result Y as the rules have laid out.
But that's fine, remembering that the PHB is the only rules that promise players anything.

If a new player turns up, a decent DM will allow them to play with the contents of the PHB. Why should the DM give an advantage to other players just because they have read rules that have nothing to do with them?

A DM who resorts to explaining everything in terms of rules is not worthy of the title. A player's experience of playing a character should be much richer and visceral than simply cross-indexing screeds of rules to find an optimal solution.

Must go eat...

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 01:08 PM
I could say very similar things about your line of argument (in fact, I just did).

People play Dungeons & Dragons in various different ways, and they have different expectations and reactions, all for different reasons. It's part of the fun. Your definition of "crunch" and "fluff" may not accord with somebody elses', but that doesn't make them wrong, since niether you nor they you are the arbitrator of the meaning of the terms. They're metaphors.

I'm sorry, no. Words have meanings, and you cannot ignore them.

If I say that you can play D&D without a player (grid on which to move your tokens) as long as you have all the maps (people playing the game) then I am first and foremost an idiot (or intentionally being deceptive).


The terms were invented by rules lawyers to give the misleading appearance that rules are more important than setting. That's why they picked such loaded terms.

"Fluff" is a derogatory word commonly used all around the English-speaking world for something that does not matter. Well, in this case the stuff that does not matter is the printed rules. They are (hopefully) useful guidelines, but if it comes down to "Try an interesting idea, or stick to the rules", then the interesting idea should win every time if you are anything like a good DM.

No, the terms aren't loaded, they accurately represent what can and cannot be calculated. The fact that you think that crunch sounds more important then fluff is because without the baseline calculations you aren't actually playing a game, you are playing magical tea party.

And this is precisely why the printed rules do matter. Because if you know how things actually operate, then you are going to end up screwed.

If you tomorrow you got up, and when you went outside it started raining up from the ground, how would you react? This is exactly what you force your players to deal with every day when you change the rules on a whim.

Is an Umbrella going to keep me dry today? Maybe, how can I know? For all I know tomorrow my umbrella may actually turn into water over my head tomorrow, because the rules change every five seconds.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 01:09 PM
I'm sorry, no. Words have meanings, and you cannot ignore them.

If I say that you can play D&D without a player (grid on which to move your tokens) as long as you have all the maps (people playing the game) then I am first and foremost an idiot (or intentionally being deceptive).

They do have meaning (in fact they usually have meanings), we invest them with that meaning, that's how it works (Like if I say, "Shaft, he's one bad Moth****a", the meaning is not literal, it relies on it's context). The terms "fluff" and "crunch" have been well discussed in this forum, they are metaphors coined to describe game rules and what those game rules describe (or fail to describe); their relative value and precise meaning is a function of the observer, not something absolute and objective.

The only dictionary definition that even vaguely fits "fluff" in this context is "something of little consequence", whereas "crunch" likely derives its meaning from "to perform mathematical computations."

valadil
2008-08-26, 01:11 PM
It strikes me that one of the fundamental points of disagreement here is a basic difference of opinion on the function and purpose of the DM.

I'd honestly be interested in exploring how the role of the DM is perceived across ideological borders here.

I see the GM as a referee and NPC/world pusher.

I think one of the other fundamental points of disagreement is with a character's knowledge of the rules. I think it was Akimbo that said all characters know about stat enhancing items because those items are part of the setting. While that's a perfectly valid way to play, I took exception to the implication that it was the only way to play. I like having characters who discover the world. I think it's perfectly reasonable for my level 1 rogue to have never heard of a Cornugun, let alone how many hit points it has.

Each GM I've played with has set the level of what and what isn't folklore in his world. Trolls being hurt by fire is almost always common knowledge. What spells hurt golems is not so common.

Tormsskull
2008-08-26, 01:22 PM
Then, as I believe has been questioned by others, how are the players supposed to know what they can do? And unless you're also building their characters, how are they supposed to make their character able to do what they want it to, when they're not permitted to know what it takes to do that?

For the basic stuff that is assumed a character should know, they should know. For example, players learn what their + to hit is. As a character, they know comparatively how good they are at hitting things. If they compare themselves against other people they have fought against or seen fight, they might be able to determine if they are better/average/below average than other people.

So here's a question. A 3.5 level 1 fighter goes on an adventure with his group. They encounter a Carrion Crawler. The fighter has never seen a CC before, and has no idea what it is. He decides to attack the CC.

Player picks up the die, and before rolling his to-hit, says "What's the monster's AC?"

Does the DM tell him at that point?

If yes, why? How does the character, having never even seen a CC before know how difficult it will be for him to score a successful hit?

Also, considering down the "Yes" path, what if after learning the AC the Player says "Screw that, I run away instead." Is that allowable?

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 01:23 PM
I see the GM as a referee and NPC/world pusher.

I think one of the other fundamental points of disagreement is with a character's knowledge of the rules. I think it was Akimbo that said all characters know about stat enhancing items because those items are part of the setting. While that's a perfectly valid way to play, I took exception to the implication that it was the only way to play. I like having characters who discover the world. I think it's perfectly reasonable for my level 1 rogue to have never heard of a Cornugun, let alone how many hit points it has.

Each GM I've played with has set the level of what and what isn't folklore in his world. Trolls being hurt by fire is almost always common knowledge. What spells hurt golems is not so common.

Knowing about Monsters is a knowledge check, so in all likelyhood your level 1 rogue cannot make the DC 25 knowledge (Planes) check to have heard of a Cornugon. Likewise, making the DC 16 check to know about a Troll's Regeneration is much easier then making the DC 30 or so checks to know all about a Golems spell immunity and what overrides it.

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 01:26 PM
For the basic stuff that is assumed a character should know, they should know. For example, players learn what their + to hit is. As a character, they know comparatively how good they are at hitting things. If they compare themselves against other people they have fought against or seen fight, they might be able to determine if they are better/average/below average than other people.

So here's a question. A 3.5 level 1 fighter goes on an adventure with his group. They encounter a Carrion Crawler. The fighter has never seen a CC before, and has no idea what it is. He decides to attack the CC.

Player picks up the die, and before rolling his to-hit, says "What's the monster's AC?"

Does the DM tell him at that point?

If yes, why? How does the character, having never even seen a CC before know how difficult it will be for him to score a successful hit?

Also, considering down the "Yes" path, what if after learning the AC the Player says "Screw that, I run away instead." Is that allowable?

No, the DM does not tell him the AC, because he would have to make an appropriate very high knowledge check in order to determine it's AC.

If however he asked, "So if it's behind the wall like that, do I take a penalty?" The DM should tell him the penalty he takes (or in fact, the bonus AC the creature receives). Because such a character would know that.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 01:28 PM
No, the DM does not tell him the AC, because he would have to make an appropriate very high knowledge check in order to determine it's AC.

If however he asked, "So if it's behind the wall like that, do I take a penalty?" The DM should tell him the penalty he takes (or in fact, the bonus AC the creature receives). Because such a character would know that.

Of course, that is your perception of what "such a character would know" (and not at all mine, I should probably say in the interests of disclosure). Can you imagine a situation where it would not be the case (not a game rule situation, but literally as a result of the expectations of the players and game master for how you play the game and what a player character should know about hiding behind a wall)?

I admit, I have quite a bit of difficulty imagining a fighter figuring his chance to hit in terms of penalties to armour class. I could imagine a player thinking about the game in those terms, on the other hand. A general "They have cover" should equally suffice or "the creature is strongly protected by horn plates, but slow moving", unless the player is calculating whether he hit or not (which he need not do, if the game master is doing it).

It all depends how transparent you want to be with the rules of the game.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 01:58 PM
Player picks up the die, and before rolling his to-hit, says "What's the monster's AC?"

Does the DM tell him at that point?

If yes, why? How does the character, having never even seen a CC before know how difficult it will be for him to score a successful hit?

Also, considering down the "Yes" path, what if after learning the AC the Player says "Screw that, I run away instead." Is that allowable?
I would say this is off-point, because monster stats are not part of the rules, nor are they something I think should necessarily be known. But it's an interesting question, as well.

The entire combat system being so abstract, it might actually make sense to find out the monster's AC just by looking at it, or by swinging at it once. Or perhaps by making a wis-based BAB vs. Bluff roll...

My inclination would be to at least require the character to attempt an attack before finding out the AC, but anything from "I won't tell you, but it has a hard carapace and moves fast" to "You think it's AC X" could be reasonable, if it's consistent.

John Campbell
2008-08-26, 02:13 PM
The GM has every right to define what happens in his gameworld and how the rules work in his game. That's what it means to be GM.

It's polite to let the players know up front about rules changes that'll affect them directly or that their characters should be expected to have some knowledge of - which includes the basic world physics, with numbers* - but it's not required to present them all beforehand, and sometimes not even possible... often the weird corner-cases that break the system in such a way that it needs to be changed don't become apparent until they actually come up in play.

But the GM's word is final. "Yeah, I'm going to house-rule that," or, "We're wasting playing time here; we'll go with my interpretation for now, and I'll review the issue later and make a final ruling next session," should always be argument-enders. Though if you do this too often or too arbitrarily, you shouldn't be surprised when you find yourself without any players.

However, the GM has neither the right nor the ability to deny the players knowledge of the rules in the books. GMs are not the special chosen people. They're just people filling one of the necessary game roles. Anyone can do it (though, granted, not everyone can do it well). Many players do do it. There are groups that switch off GMing duties regularly. There are people who play in one group and GM for another. There are people who may not be GMing now, but have in the past, and will again in the future. (Hell, I've played through modules that I'd previously GMed... not a lot of fun; one of the reasons I don't use published adventures anymore and dissuade others from doing so.) Those people have just as much right to have a DMG or MM as you do... and really, so does anyone else who wants to have one. And even if you can convince them to let you confiscate their property (my 3.5 DMG and MM - SRD, really - are on my laptop, and if you think I'm giving that up for any reason not put forth by a man with a badge and a gun, you've got another think coming), you can't take away their memories. And a lot of gamers are the kind of people who retain large proportions of what they read.

So you can't deny them that knowledge. Attempting to just pisses people off. This doesn't mean that you can't house-rule; it just means that you have to be open and up-front about what you're doing.

And, y'know, most game systems don't divide rules into "things the players can know" and "things only the GM can know". Setting information, yes (and even most of that will be general knowlege), but not rules.

(Well, there's Paranoia, where it's treason for the players to exhibit knowledge of most of the rules, but that's Paranoia. It's not supposed to be serious. Or fair.)

And on top of everything else, D&D 3.x divided it badly. There's stuff in the DMG - and even the MM - that the players really need access to. (e.g., The DMG prestige classes make the difference between several fundamental character concepts being viable options vs. them being so badly gimped that by mid-levels they might as well just stay home because they're not going to be any use to the party.)

_____
* No, the characters don't know about the numbers. But the characters live in the world, and have a deep and detailed understanding of it, while the players can only see it dimly, filtered through the GM's descriptions, which are necessarily going to be comparatively shallow and vague, because of the innate limitations of merely telling versus experiencing. The numbers are a translation mechanism so the players can convert what their characters just know to something that they can understand via analysis.

The character can feel the wind on his face, see how the gusts ripple the grass, listen to it rustling the leaves, watch his target's cloak fluttering around him, and generally synthesize a lot of information to make a judgement of how much trouble it's going to give him making his shots. The player won't have anywhere near as much information, even from a very descriptive GM (and is more likely to have something like "the wind is pretty strong"), and needs the numbers to close that gap.

And a professional footballer missing a pass in the wind just means that he failed his roll (possibly because of the penalty); it doesn't mean that he doesn't know what sort of penalty he was looking at on the roll.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 02:35 PM
No, the characters don't know about the numbers. But the characters live in the world, and have a deep and detailed understanding of it, while the players can only see it dimly, filtered through the GM's descriptions, which are necessarily going to be comparatively shallow and vague, because of the innate limitations of merely telling versus experiencing. The numbers are a translation mechanism so the players can convert what their characters just know to something that they can understand via analysis.

The character can feel the wind on his face, see how the gusts ripple the grass, listen to it rustling the leaves, watch his target's cloak fluttering around him, and generally synthesize a lot of information to make a judgement of how much trouble it's going to give him making his shots. The player won't have anywhere near as much information, even from a very descriptive GM (and is more likely to have something like "the wind is pretty strong"), and needs the numbers to close that gap.

And a professional footballer missing a pass in the wind just means that he failed his roll (possibly because of the penalty); it doesn't mean that he doesn't know what sort of penalty he was looking at on the roll.

I don't really agree with this. It is enough to hear that a wind is weak, moderate or strong without rendering it as a numerical expression of a subjective idea, especially in a game of abstract randomly determined probabilities. If the game simulated wind strength, angles, and energy necessary to achieve velocity X, along with all the other factors worth modelling, I might be more inclined to accede.

hamlet
2008-08-26, 02:37 PM
John Campbell: Nobody here, least of all me, is denying players the right to have knowledge of what rules are contained in the DMG. In fact, I explicitly stated that it's fine in my opinion that players have that knowledge and know it well enough to bring it up to the DM when and if they feel the need to.

HOWEVER. I am saying that during game time, it is inappropriate for players to have unfettered access to the DMG for the purpose of disputing rulings by the DM. I realize that when you're playing 3.0 or later, you can't help but have access to the DMG because the idiots that wrote it decided to throw a significant amount of rules for players into it*, but at the same time failing to observe the general split between Player rules (i.e., the PHB) and DM Rules (i.e., DMG and MM) and stating that it is ok or even preferable for the players to be able to argue rulings with the DM at any time undermines the point of the DM in the first place.

The DM is not a rules reciter. He/she/it is not bound to the rules as written in the DMG in any way shape or form. The PHB constitutes a gaming contract (as Nagora has said repeatedly) between the DM and the players as the basic foundation of the game and action resolution. Any modifications to those rules specifically pertaining to a character's actions should be listed up front. Modifications to the DMG are required IN NO WAY to meet the approval of the players.

*The 3.x rules books were very poorly designed from a content perspective. Abysmally designed. There is no reason at all that player information (the function of the class and its abilities, status effects, prestige classes, and etc.) should have been spread out into the DMG. This wasn't just an error, it was astounding stupidity.

Tormsskull
2008-08-26, 02:44 PM
My inclination would be to at least require the character to attempt an attack before finding out the AC, but anything from "I won't tell you, but it has a hard carapace and moves fast" to "You think it's AC X" could be reasonable, if it's consistent.

And honestly, I would say either way is acceptable, since it is all a matter of preference. In such a situation where I would tell a player the AC of the monster BEFORE they roll (since my players seem to think if they know the number they can impress Lady Luck on the dice :smalltongue: ), if they then said "Screw that, I'm running", I'd bring up the "But your character doesn't really know that." And then ask them to justify their character's actions of running. Which they would of course not be able to.

Every group is going to be different, of course. In my group, we prize roleplaying as the goal. To facilitate roleplaying we try to hide the mechanics as much as possible. When I describe a creature to the players, I hope they are visualizing the description, and imagining the scene that is being laid out. If in their heads they are thinking "CR: 5, 4d8+8 HP, Att: 2 DMG: 1d8/1d8" then we're at a crossroads.

Heck, I once even had the mysterious powers of a campaign world use a no save curse on a character who's player metagamed to the extreme. That curse? The character could not gain any more experience (it was temporary but I didn't tell the player that).

That player, knowing that he had "cheated", accepted the penalty (meaning he didn't storm out whining), and went on playing his character. His rationale was that he liked his character so much that he didn't want to get him killed (which was incredibly likely due to the players poor tactics). So he used information his character had no way of knowing and high-tailed it out of there.

Hyrael
2008-08-26, 03:29 PM
There are only two reasons to for a player to pull out a monster manual:

1. He's summoning something, or using Planar Binding. Or needs to look up stats for a mount/falimiar/companion

2. He rolls super, super high on a knowledge check about a monster, and the DM says
"here, just take the book"

Anything else is teh bull****s

DMG's only use to players is Magic item shopping and creation, as well as PRCs and the Improved Familiar Feat.

turkishproverb
2008-08-26, 03:48 PM
There are only two reasons to for a player to pull out a monster manual:

1. He's summoning something, or using Planar Binding. Or needs to look up stats for a mount/falimiar/companion

2. He rolls super, super high on a knowledge check about a monster, and the DM says
"here, just take the book"

Anything else is teh bull****s

DMG's only use to players is Magic item shopping and creation, as well as PRCs and the Improved Familiar Feat.

And status effects, and if your character manages to Fly, and wind speed (something an experienced archer can measure alot better than a DM can describe) and a thousand other things.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 04:01 PM
Where does this idea that the PHB is a contract with the players (and everything else none of their business) come from?

Given the people bringing it up, I suspect it's a 2e-ism (or earlier), but I really don't know. I never saw it indicated in 3e, but I could have just missed it.

I will note (and not be the first, I think) that that idea is not a very widely used one, let alone fundamental to RPGs.

I don't really agree with this. It is enough to hear that a wind is weak, moderate or strong without rendering it as a numerical expression of a subjective idea, especially in a game of abstract randomly determined probabilities. If the game simulated wind strength, angles, and energy necessary to achieve velocity X, along with all the other factors worth modelling, I might be more inclined to accede.
Nobody is asking for a wind speed in mph. But if you tell me I'm feeling a strong wind, I've got no idea what that means at all. And though I've done a very little archery, I really have no clue how it impacts my level 7 archer.

If you tell me I'm feeling a strong wind which will give me a -3 to archery, at least I have some information.

And honestly, I would say either way is acceptable, since it is all a matter of preference. In such a situation where I would tell a player the AC of the monster BEFORE they roll (since my players seem to think if they know the number they can impress Lady Luck on the dice :smalltongue: ), if they then said "Screw that, I'm running", I'd bring up the "But your character doesn't really know that." And then ask them to justify their character's actions of running. Which they would of course not be able to.
Well, the point I was interested in is what it takes to figure out the AC of a monster. Given the sheer unclarity of meaning there, you could interpret it as something obvious before they attack.

Every group is going to be different, of course. In my group, we prize roleplaying as the goal. To facilitate roleplaying we try to hide the mechanics as much as possible. When I describe a creature to the players, I hope they are visualizing the description, and imagining the scene that is being laid out. If in their heads they are thinking "CR: 5, 4d8+8 HP, Att: 2 DMG: 1d8/1d8" then we're at a crossroads.
I disagree with your methods, there...for a few reasons.
-Your description of the creature, let alone the scene, would have to be utterly amazing to convey to the players anywhere near the information that the PCs get by being there.
-The creature's stat-block should complement and flesh out its description, not weaken it. Of course, if it's something they don't know much about then they shouldn't be seeing all its features, but a lot of features aren't really supposed to be hidden.

Curmudgeon
2008-08-26, 04:05 PM
DMG's only use to players is Magic item shopping and creation, as well as PRCs and the Improved Familiar Feat. You need to look more closely, because the DMG is just full of stuff that one needs to play the game. Want to know about uncommon weapons, like a kusari-gama? Look in the DMG, not the PH. Say you've put points into Craft: Trapmaking. The DMG, not the PH, tells you how long traps take to make (way too long). When the DM tells you there's a quarter moon showing in the night sky, do you know how well your character can see? (Hint: Check your DMG for that info.) Or maybe you just want to drop a big rock on something. It's the DMG that tells you how much damage you can expect from this sort of improvised weapon.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 04:05 PM
Nobody is asking for a wind speed in mph. But if you tell me I'm feeling a strong wind, I've got no idea what that means at all. And though I've done a very little archery, I really have no clue how it impacts my level 7 archer.

If you tell me I'm feeling a strong wind which will give me a -3 to archery, at least I have some information.

I know, I said if the game was not one of abstract probabilities, but built on the certainties of physics, I might see something in this argument. Why do you need to know what the penalties are for shooting in a strong wind? Do it, don't do it. It's up to you. Ask the game master a question. "Does Talric think he can hit the target?" or "What does Talric think his chances are?" Or don't. All depends on your style of play.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 04:21 PM
I know, I said if the game was not one of abstract probabilities, but built on the certainties of physics, I might see something in this argument. Why do you need to know what the penalties are for shooting in a strong wind? Do it, don't do it. It's up to you. Ask the game master a question. "Does Talric think he can hit the target?" or "What does Talric think his chances are?" Or don't. All depends on your style of play.
Are you saying that the DM shouldn't volunteer the information without being asked? Or is there some larger point here that I'm missing? Also, I would never ask what my character thinks about something. That's for me to decide. What I want to know is what they perceive.

I don't have any idea why you think 'the certainties of physics' (or their absence) are relevant to this issue. I just want to know how badly I'm going to be effected by a condition that my character can observe, and I can't. I don't much care whether you narrate my missing as due to the wind or not, unless you're using that to convey information.

evisiron
2008-08-26, 04:22 PM
My reaction?

"Here you go. Pass it back if you need more eyes looking for something."

Matthew
2008-08-26, 04:27 PM
Are you saying that the DM shouldn't volunteer the information without being asked? Or is there some larger point here that I'm missing?

I'm saying you don't need to know the probability modifiers to shoot the arrow, or even have an idea of whether you will hit or miss. It all depends on how transparent the rules are for your group.



Also, I would never ask what my character thinks about something. That's for me to decide. What I want to know is what they perceive.

So, you are happy to let the dice determine what your character knows and doesn't know, but not the game master? Given that the game master decides on the difficulty of most knowledge checks, and can modify for circumstances on a whim, that seems faintly ridiculous.



I don't have any idea why you think 'the certainties of physics' (or their absence) are relevant to this issue.

Because in the real world you will hit or miss depending on many factors relevant to a bow shot. In D&D you will hit or miss depending on what you roll on a die.



I just want to know how badly I'm going to be effected by a condition that my character can observe, and I can't. I don't much care whether you narrate my missing as due to the wind or not, unless you're using that to convey information.

And that is your preference, but the "larger point" is that it's not everyone's.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-26, 04:27 PM
And status effects, and if your character manages to Fly, and wind speed (something an experienced archer can measure alot better than a DM can describe) and a thousand other things.

Also, lets not forget polymorph type spells too.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 04:43 PM
I'm saying you don't need to know the probability modifiers to shoot the arrow, or even have an idea of whether you will hit or miss. It all depends on how transparent the rules are for your group.
Do you actually think an archer has no idea how the wind impacts his aim? Or even whether it has any effect? A D&D player, playing an archer, has no idea how or if the wind impacts his aim, unless the DM provides that information.

This isn't rules transparency, it's "why is my first quest to figure out where my house is when my character already knows" territory.

So, you are happy to let the dice determine what your character knows and doesn't know, but not the game master? Given that the game master decides on the difficulty of most knowledge checks, that seem faintly ridiculous.
I think I misled you there. My objection is not to being told what information my character has (by observation, knowledge check, or what have you), but to being told what my character thinks. Probably just a point of wording. My archer can think he'll make a shot against a pixie at 500 feet in a tornado if I want, wrong as that expectation is likely to be.

Because in the real world you will hit or miss depending on many factors relevant to a bow shot. In D&D you will hit or miss depending on what you roll on a die.
But what you need to roll on a die depends on some factors relevant to the bow shot. Maybe the wind isn't one of them, that's ok. But if the wind is going to change the chance of making the shot, I'm still not seeing your point. Reality may not have d20s under the hood, but it does have things that might as well be dice rolls.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 05:02 PM
Do you actually think an archer has no idea how the wind impacts his aim? Or even whether it has any effect? A D&D player, playing an archer, has no idea how or if the wind impacts his aim, unless the DM provides that information.

No, I am saying that you don't need modifiers in 5% probability increments to surmise that shooting a bow in a strong wind may lead to shots that go awry.



This isn't rules transparency, it's "why is my first quest to figure out where my house is when my character already knows" territory.

It's really not. The first thing you have to know is the target DC of hitting something. If you don't know that, then it's pointless to know the modifier for wind. Whether you miss on account of the modifier or the target DC or some other hidden factor, the game master can describe the miss any way he likes. There's no real logic to it.



I think I misled you there. My objection is not to being told what information my character has (by observation, knowledge check, or what have you), but to being told what my character thinks. Probably just a point of wording. My archer can think he'll make a shot against a pixie at 500 feet in a tornado if I want, wrong as that expectation is likely to be.

That seems entirely odd to me that you feel free to override the character's knowledge with your own as though the character thinks it. By your own argument an experienced archer knows he isn't going to hit a pixie in a tornado, yet because the player wants him to think it is likely the archer's experience is disregarded? Sounds like a double standard.



But what you need to roll on a die depends on some factors relevant to the bow shot. Maybe the wind isn't one of them, that's ok. But if the wind is going to change the chance of making the shot, I'm still not seeing your point. Reality may not have d20s under the hood, but it does have things that might as well be dice rolls.

All die rolls represent are probabilities for the game. They in no way model reality except insofar as they suggest "good/bad". The argument that you need to know the modifiers to know what your expert bowman character thinks about the wind is bogus. It may help an individual, but it's not an absolute necessity for play. It's just a preference [i.e. you want the information numerised so that you can interpret what the game master is telling you in the form of a number, then you put that into an equation to derive a probability that then tells you this is a strong wind].

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 05:18 PM
No, I am saying that you don't need modifiers in 5% probability increments to surmise that shooting a bow in a strong wind may lead to shots that go awry.
Yes. You actually do. Because the DM's mind is a strange and mysterious place. The wind might just be window dressing. It might be a -1 penalty. It might be a -10 penalty. Maybe it's at my back and gives me a +1 to damage. If all I know is that it's a strong wind, the only way I'll ever figure that out is taking a bunch of shots and metagaming to see what I need to roll to hit.

It's really not. The first thing you have to know is the target DC of hitting something. If you don't know that, then it's pointless to know the modifier for wind. Whether you miss on account of the modifier or the target DC or some other hidden factor, the game master can describe the miss any way he likes. There's no real logic to it.
Do you really think that knowing you have a -5 to archery has no impact on your choice of tactics, because you don't know the AC of the target? Laying aside the fact that sometimes you do have a very good idea of the target's base AC. (Orcs in chainmail probably have AC 15-16 plus shield if present, for example. They might surprise you, but you've got a baseline.)

That seems entirely odd to me that you feel free to override the character's knowledge with your own as though the character thinks it. By your own argument an experienced archer knows he isn't going to hit a pixie in a tornado, yet because the player wants him to think it is likely the archer's experience is disregarded? Sounds like a double standard.
I quite literally do not know what this paragraph means.

If the archer is proficient, he can recognize conditions that make the shot harder. If the archer, despite being proficient, has the sort of arrogance to think (in in-character terms) that he rolls all 20s and/or has a BAB of 50, he might decide that that hard as shooting through a tornado is, he can probably pull it off. This is a roleplaying issue, not a player knowledge issue...

Matthew
2008-08-26, 05:25 PM
Yes. You actually do. Because the DM's mind is a strange and mysterious place. The wind might just be window dressing. It might be a -1 penalty. It might be a -10 penalty. Maybe it's at my back and gives me a +1 to damage. If all I know is that it's a strong wind, the only way I'll ever figure that out is taking a bunch of shots and metagaming to see what I need to roll to hit.

The game master is not your adversary. You don't need to know the probabilities (unless you want to). If you want to know, just ask him. It's a perfectly good way to play the game, but it's preferential. Some players literally do not care how the rules work (my girlfriend for one, but she ain't alone).



Do you really think that knowing you have a -5 to archery has no impact on your choice of tactics, because you don't know the AC of the target? Laying aside the fact that sometimes you do have a very good idea of the target's base AC. (Orcs in chainmail probably have AC 15-16 plus shield if present, for example. They might surprise you, but you've got a baseline.)

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the argument that it in some way reflects the archer's knowledge is bogus. Transparent mechanics are fine, though they are not to my taste.



I quite literally do not know what this paragraph means.

Then I think we may be at an impasse.



If the archer is proficient, he can recognize conditions that make the shot harder. If the archer, despite being proficient, has the sort of arrogance to think (in in-character terms) that he rolls all 20s and/or has a BAB of 50, he might decide that that hard as shooting through a tornado is, he can probably pull it off. This is a roleplaying issue, not a player knowledge issue...
Assuming that a fluke may result in a hit is quite different from "I can shoot accurately into a tornado." The divides you are drawing are completely artificial. On the one hand you're saying that you need to know modifiers to reflect the bowman's experience, on the other hand you're saying his experience counts for nothing as regarding what he thinks (since that is decided by you).

nagora
2008-08-26, 05:29 PM
Just as a note: in the battle Towton in 1461, the side that was upwind fired all their arrows at the other side, who were out of range because of the wind to absolutely no effect. And these were guys who trained hard enough to use longbows properly.

People simply can not judge wind force to the sort of accuracy being suggested here.

turkishproverb
2008-08-26, 05:31 PM
Just as a note: in the battle Towton in 1461, the side that was upwind fired all their arrows at the other side, who were out of range because of the wind to absolutely no effect. And these were guys who trained hard enough to use longbows properly.

People simply can not judge wind force to the sort of accuracy being suggested here.

sometimes they can. A single screw up or oddity isn't proof that on average someone can't judge something. For example, the Christmas Ceasefires in WWI didn't mean you should expect that kind've thing, it was partly a fluke.

nagora
2008-08-26, 05:45 PM
sometimes they can. A single screw up or oddity isn't proof that on average someone can't judge something. For example, the Christmas Ceasefires in WWI didn't mean you should expect that kind've thing, it was partly a fluke.
Actually, given the circumstances, I don't believe the truces were a fluke, but that's another conversation. And the battle of Towton was huge, so it's not one to two idiots but hundreds - thousands - of archers wasting their arrows in snow and wind. They just kept trying.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 05:46 PM
The game master is not your adversary. You don't need to know the probabilities (unless you want to). If you want to know, just ask him. It's a perfectly good way to play the game, but it's preferential. Some people literally do not care how the rules work.
Ok, so, am I correctly understanding that you:
a)Don't think it's in-character knowledge what this 'strong wind' constitutes.
b)Don't think there's anything wrong with a player wanting to know anyway.
c)Think the DM should not provide the information unless specifically asked.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the argument that it in some way reflects the archer's knowledge is bogus. Transparent mechanics are fine, though they are not to my taste.
So no warrior would ever say "It's too windy for bow-shot, I'll use my sword."? Or is it that they wouldn't say "It's windy, but I'll use my bow anyway."? Or do you mean that the nature of the wind has no impact on which they say?

Assuming that a fluke may result in a hit is quite different from "I can shoot accurately into a tornado." The divides you are drawing are completely artificial. On the one hand you're saying that you need to know modifiers to reflect the bowman's experience, on the other hand you're saying his experience counts for nothing as regarding what he thinks (since that is decided by you).
I don't get it. Is a character who is technically proficient in the skill of archery, and thus able to judge the impact of the wind on it, but simultaneously an arrogant twit who thinks despite evidence to the contrary that he can shoot out a chipmunk's eye a quarter-mile away at night in torrential rain impossible for you to imagine?

That's all I was proposing...


Re Nagora:
Do you mean down-wind? Upwind would give you more range...

Also, do we know it wasn't a failure of command? Just one of the possible reasons for that other than the one attributed.

nagora
2008-08-26, 05:50 PM
Re Nagora:
Do you mean down-wind? Upwind would give you more range...
Yes, sorry. Late and going to bed.


Also, do we know it wasn't a failure of command? Just one of the possible reasons for that other than the one attributed.
It's hard to be sure, but someone thought it was worth trying again, and again, and again... And everyone there was familiar with archery as a weapon.

Raum
2008-08-26, 05:51 PM
A discussion of GM roles and responsibilities seems mixed up with a discussion of rule openness and transparency. To me they are entirely separate issues.

GM roles vary based on game, group, experience, and even time. There is no "one true method" of GMing. It's much like leadership, you have to adjust your style to what works with the group or even situation. When I GM I generally consider myself just another player - with slightly different responsibilities. But I follow the rules and generally roll in the open just as everyone else does. If a player and I disagree over a rule I'll make a call to keep the game moving and correct it for future games if I later find out it was the wrong call. If I'm uncertain of the call, I'll generally come down in favor of the player. After all, we play for fun and my NPCs are far easier to replace than his single character. That's certainly not the only style of GMing, it's not even the only style I use. It's simply a comfortable default for myself and the friends I game with. Other styles may work better with other groups.

Rule transparency is a separate issue. If we're playing a game, we need to be operating on the same basic assumptions and using the same rules. Try GM WFRP while your players play AD&D if you don't believe me. It'd be amusing for a little while. Possibly more important, the rules are how we (all players, including GM) interact with the game world. They're the 'physics' of the fictional world. If we're interpreting them differently or, worse, using different rules, inconsistencies enter. Depending on the importance of the rule and on how disparate the interpretations are, the game may be torn apart. Communicating and using a consistent rule set is the best way I know of preventing such issues. The boards are full of angst over this, that, or the other thing and 99% of it could be prevented by simply agreeing on rules up front.

As an aside, "security by obscurity" seldom works for long. It's a bad joke in the IT industry. Perhaps we gamers need to learn what InfoSec professionals already know...

Raum
2008-08-26, 06:01 PM
Just as a note: in the battle Towton in 1461, the side that was upwind fired all their arrows at the other side, who were out of range because of the wind to absolutely no effect. And these were guys who trained hard enough to use longbows properly.

People simply can not judge wind force to the sort of accuracy being suggested here.I really doubt that was caused by a lack of knowledge, they knew they were outranged. They also had poor visibility (couldn't see the opponents much of the time), poor discipline, and uncertain leadership.

It takes extremely well disciplined troops to stand and take fire without responding. They simply couldn't do it. Even some of the men at arms broke ranks to seek hand to hand combat rather than endure an unanswerable rain of arrows.

I see lack of discipline and a need to "do something" no matter how ineffective a far more likely cause than everyone thinking they had the range. Else they'd have stopped after a single ineffective volley.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 06:03 PM
Ok, so, am I correctly understanding that you:
a)Don't think it's in-character knowledge what this 'strong wind' constitutes.
b)Don't think there's anything wrong with a player wanting to know anyway.
c)Think the DM should not provide the information unless specifically asked.

I think that none of the above are absolutes. They are play style preferences, not absolute constants by which everbody should play the game. I don't think it is necessary to numerically define a strong wind. In fact, I know it's not.



So no warrior would ever say "It's too windy for bow-shot, I'll use my sword."? Or is it that they wouldn't say "It's windy, but I'll use my bow anyway."? Or do you mean that the nature of the wind has no impact on which they say?

Why wouldn't they say that? What would preclude it?

DM: A strong wind blows across the vale.
PC: How strong is it? Will my character get a penalty to hit with his bow?
DM: Yeah, we'll call it -4 to hit, but the strength of the wind varies.
PC: Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs.

DM: A strong wind blows across the vale.
PC: Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs.



I don't get it. Is a character who is technically proficient in the skill of archery, and thus able to judge the impact of the wind on it, but simultaneously an arrogant twit who thinks despite evidence to the contrary that he can shoot out a chipmunk's eye a quarter-mile away at night in torrential rain impossible for you to imagine?

That's all I was proposing...

I think that character is contradictory. Possibly insane...



Possibly more important, the rules are how we (all players, including GM) interact with the game world. They're the 'physics' of the fictional world. If we're interpreting them differently or, worse, using different rules, inconsistencies enter.

I strongly disagree with that, but I think we might as well do a search of this forum as go through it all again.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 06:19 PM
I think that none of the above are absolutes. They are play style preferences, not absolute constants by which everbody should play the game. I don't think it is necessary to numerically define a strong wind. In fact, I know it's not.
I was afraid that wasn't clear...I meant those to be all simultaneous, not 'pick one'. And I failed to format it better.

Why wouldn't they say that? What would preclude it?

DM: A strong wind blows across the vale.
PC: How strong is it? Will my character get a penalty to hit with his bow?
DM: Yeah, we'll call it -4 to hit, but the strength of the wind varies.
PC: Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs.

DM: A strong wind blows across the vale.
PC: Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs.
What would preclude it is not being able to make any distinction among cases where the first reaction is indicated, vs cases where the second is indicated. That decision is part personal taste, part having a description of the wind that gives you at least a loose idea of what it will do to your shooting.

If you have no problem with the first script you wrote here, I am even less sure what we're arguing about...is it that I have a problem with the second script, where the player may be shooting in a hurricane and not be aware of that?

I think that character is contradictory. Possibly insane...
I'd grant the latter in an instant. The former, not so much.

Raum
2008-08-26, 06:20 PM
I strongly disagree with that, but I think we might as well do a search of this forum as go through it all again.If you're going to disagree I'd just as soon know why. It seems simple to me; arrow ranges represent how the arrow interacts with gravity and air resistance, a character's strength represents the amount of force he is capable of exerting, the modifiers for wind speed represent how strong the wind is blowing, modifiers for cover represent line of sight obstructions, etc. The majority of the rules outside of the magic section are representing something.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 06:27 PM
I was afraid that wasn't clear...I meant those to be all simultaneous, not 'pick one'. And I failed to format it better.

Now it is I who am afraid to say I was not clear. I was aware they were simultaneous, I do not consider any of them (whether simultaneously employed or not) to be absolute ways to play the game. I do consider them all (both individually and simultaneously) to be equally valid ways to understand and play the game (with values that depend on your group)



What would preclude it is not being able to make any distinction among cases where the first reaction is indicated, vs cases where the second is indicated. That decision is part personal taste, part having a description of the wind that gives you at least a loose idea of what it will do to your shooting.

Strong, medium and slight are pretty loose. That they may not provide sufficient distinction for you just means it's not enough for you.



If you have no problem with the first script you wrote here, I am even less sure what we're arguing about...is it that I have a problem with the second script, where the player may be shooting in a hurricane and not be aware of that?

Of course I have no problem with the former. As I said above, if the information is not enough, ask the game master. He's not hiding rules from you (well, he shouldn't be, anyway).

If you think that "strong wind" may actually mean "hurricane" then either you or your game master have a poor grasp of the English lexicon (and since the former does not seem to be the case, I must assume that you have encountered this problem directly).



I'd grant the latter in an instant. The former, not so much.

Well, the insanity would explain the contradiction.

______________________________________________



DM: "A strong wind blows across the vale."
PC: "How strong is it? Will my character get a penalty to hit with his bow?"
DM: "Yeah, we'll call it -4 to hit, but the strength of the wind varies."
PC: "Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs."

later...

DM: "A strong wind blows here."
PC: "Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs." *Roll* "That's a hit!"
DM: "Nope, it's a miss."
PC: "Say what? A -4 penalty would not cause Talric to miss."
DM: "It's a somewhat stronger wind, so I applied a -5 modifier."
PC: "That's not fair!"

later again...

DM: "A -3 wind blows across the desert..."

or alternatively...



DM: "A strong wind blows here."
PC: "Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs." *Roll* "Aw man, that's a miss!"
DM: "Nope, it's a hit."
PC: "Really? Cool!"

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 06:47 PM
Of course I have no problem with the former. As I said above, if the information is not enough, ask the game master. He's not hiding rules from you (well, he shouldn't be, anyway).

Did you miss the part where that's exactly what Nago and Tormsskull say good DMs do?

(Actually, Tormsskull says it's his preference, Nago says that you are an absolutely terrible DM if your players know the rules.)

Matthew
2008-08-26, 06:48 PM
Did you miss the part where that's exactly what Nago and Tormsskull say good DMs do?

(Actually, Tormsskull says it's his preference, Nago says that you are an absolutely terrible DM if your players know the rules.)

Why should I have exactly the same opinion as them? It's not a robot factory.



If you're going to disagree I'd just as soon know why. It seems simple to me; arrow ranges represent how the arrow interacts with gravity and air resistance, a character's strength represents the amount of force he is capable of exerting, the modifiers for wind speed represent how strong the wind is blowing, modifiers for cover represent line of sight obstructions, etc. The majority of the rules outside of the magic section are representing something.

I am afraid I just don't really have time to go into it again. I figured you'd be familar with the arguments anyway. I'll do a search, wait a moment.

[edit]
Not much luck with the GitP search engine; the short version:

The rules of the game only approximate the physics of the game world (where the game world is defined as a "real world" in the imagination). When the rules fail to describe some aspect of that world as imagined, the rules are wrong, not the game world.

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 06:52 PM
Why should I have exactly the same opinion as them? It's not a robot factory.

Right, but you can't argue against someone by saying: "Even though your assertion is absolutely correct, I'm not saying the opposite."

When their original post was countering when someone else did say the opposite.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 06:53 PM
Right, but you can't argue against someone by saying: "Even though your assertion is absolutely correct, I'm not saying the opposite."

When their original post was countering when someone else did say the opposite.

What are you talking about?

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 06:55 PM
DM: "A strong wind blows across the vale."
PC: "How strong is it? Will my character get a penalty to hit with his bow?"
DM: "Yeah, we'll call it -4 to hit, but the strength of the wind varies."
PC: "Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs."

later...

DM: "A strong wind blows here."
PC: "Okay. Talric moves closer to shoot at the Orcs." *Roll* "That's a hit!"
DM: "Nope, it's a miss."
PC: "Say what? A -4 penalty would not cause Talric to miss."
DM: "It's a somewhat stronger wind, so I applied a -5 modifier."
PC: "That's not fair!"

later again...

DM: "A -3 wind blows across the desert..."

Alternatively he could use the actual rules for wind in the DMG, and then he could just say Stong Wind and it would mean -2 penalty every time.

And if he wanted to have a -4 penalty he could say that it is a Severe wind.

But he has to actually follow the rules for that method of description to work instead of just making up numbers every five seconds.

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 06:58 PM
What are you talking about?

When someone addresses a point, (IE the one made my Nago that any player who has ever even seen a DMG is a horrible player who is cheating, and the Players should never know any rules at all) you can't just jump in and say, "No man, Nago is totally right, you shouldn't use the actual DMG rules." Response: Not using the rules results in X. "But I never said you shouldn't know the rules!"

Matthew
2008-08-26, 06:59 PM
Alternatively he could use the actual rules for wind in the DMG, and then he could just say Stong Wind and it would mean -2 penalty every time.

And if he wanted to have a -4 penalty he could say that it is a Severe wind.

But he has to actually follow the rules for that method of description to work instead of just making up numbers every five seconds.

And you might follow the rules of simple courtesy, but I doubt that you will. The example is meant to illustrate a point, not describe the rules of D20. In fact you have rather neatly reinforced that point (though I daresay unintentionally).



When someone addresses a point, (IE the one made my Nago that any player who has ever even seen a DMG is a horrible player who is cheating, and the Players should never know any rules at all) you can't just jump in and say, "No man, Nago is totally right, you shouldn't use the actual DMG rules." Response: Not using the rules results in X. "But I never said you shouldn't know the rules!"

I think you may be misunderstanding what I wrote (and, indeed, what others wrote).

Swordguy
2008-08-26, 07:05 PM
Did you miss the part where that's exactly what Nago and Tormsskull say good DMs do?

(Actually, Tormsskull says it's his preference, Nago says that you are an absolutely terrible DM if your players know the rules.)

That's not what he said. He said that your players having 100% access to the DMG compromises the DM's authority as the rules referee, because they aren't listening to the DM anymore - they're going straight for the books, taking away the option for the DM to make an ad-hoc ruling that might fit the story better than strict adherence to the rules.

Frankly, unless the player needs the PrC stuff (in which case, they should damn well Xerox it), they have no business having a DMG at the table, to say nothing of the MM. The only reason to have one is because you EXPECT to go head-to-head against the DM on a ruling, and want the text reference handy to show him up. That's an inherently adversarial position, and, as an adherent to that, YOU, sir, would not be welcome at my table.

Oslecamo
2008-08-26, 07:27 PM
Alternatively he could use the actual rules for wind in the DMG, and then he could just say Stong Wind and it would mean -2 penalty every time.

And if he wanted to have a -4 penalty he could say that it is a Severe wind.

But he has to actually follow the rules for that method of description to work instead of just making up numbers every five seconds.

Yeah, but the question here is, if the players don't remember how much of a penalty is a severe wind, should the GM burrow them the DMG?

And if the party is preparing to face the BBEG, should the GM hand them over the character sheet stating all his strenghts and weakness for the party to abuse?

Raum
2008-08-26, 07:38 PM
The rules of the game only approximate the physics of the game world (where the game world is defined as a "real world" in the imagination). When the rules fail to describe some aspect of that world as imagined, the rules are wrong, not the game world.Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to "RAW," it's the rules being used in game which are important. Out of the book or house ruled, they need to be communicated and consistent. I have nothing against changing rules to match your game world, doing so is expected in one of my favorite systems. However, hiding rules from players is ineffective at best (how long does it take to figure out a BBEG's AC?) and counterproductive at worst (confused players because they don't understand the rules).

Matthew
2008-08-26, 07:45 PM
Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to "RAW," it's the rules being used in game which are important. Out of the book or house ruled, they need to be communicated and consistent. I have nothing against changing rules to match your game world, doing so is expected in one of my favorite systems. However, hiding rules from players is ineffective at best (how long does it take to figure out a BBEG's AC?) and counterproductive at worst (confused players because they don't understand the rules).

The assertion is that the rules of the game are important, but the game world reality takes precedent. No rules can be the physics of the game world (well maybe if they actually describe the physics), they can only stand in for them. When they fail to describe something, that is just their nature (it is to be expected), and the game master should feel free to discard the rule in that case (in my opinion).

As far as hiding rules go, there's nothing wrong with players figuring out the armour class of monsters. There is no need to tell them they are right or wrong, though. Whether the players know the rules or not isn't usually a concern for me. I play in groups where some know them very well ["Two Handed Swords are +3 versus Armour Class 7."], and others have no interest in them at all ["Which die do I roll?"].

arguskos
2008-08-26, 07:48 PM
However, hiding rules from players is ineffective at best (how long does it take to figure out a BBEG's AC?) and counterproductive at worst (confused players because they don't understand the rules).
I think that there's a distinct difference between sharing houserules and sharing monster stats.

Houserules need to be told to the players, up front. If they ask for clarification later, give it. It's vital to keep an even playing field, and no one's really going to argue that.

However, when it comes to modifiers to rolls or monster statistics, no, those should not be shared. If they figure them out on their own, great, go PC's. If not, fine. If my players guess the BBEG's AC, then I'll confirm it, since they've already done the testing in-game (by swinging and hitting/missing, and then filling in the blanks). Air speed modifiers to ranged attacks? That's just the DM going, "Uh... it's a strong wind at your back. Take a shot, and see what happens?" The PC's don't need to know what the modifier IS. It's not relevant.

To the OP, in session, I ask that no one bring a DMG or MM, unless I forget mine, in which case I ask for someone to bring one for my use. If anyone questions me, I like saying that it cuts down on rules disputes, since if I'm the only one with the book, it's pretty tough to argue with me. As a player, I never bring anything but a PHB and any supplements my character uses, for the DM to reference if he has any questions. It's a trust and respect thing.

-argus

Akimbo
2008-08-26, 08:16 PM
That's not what he said. He said that your players having 100% access to the DMG compromises the DM's authority as the rules referee, because they aren't listening to the DM anymore - they're going straight for the books, taking away the option for the DM to make an ad-hoc ruling that might fit the story better than strict adherence to the rules.

No what he said was that giving them any access at all to any of the DMG allows them to know things that they should never be allowed to know (such as flight rules, wind rules, trap crafting rules, what items might possibly exist, ect.)


Frankly, unless the player needs the PrC stuff (in which case, they should damn well Xerox it), they have no business having a DMG at the table, to say nothing of the MM. The only reason to have one is because you EXPECT to go head-to-head against the DM on a ruling, and want the text reference handy to show him up. That's an inherently adversarial position, and, as an adherent to that, YOU, sir, would not be welcome at my table.

I'm sorry, why should I have to waste paper and ink to recopy something I payed for in the first place just so you can feel better.

And as for the MM: 1) Summons, 2) Wildshaping, 3) Races, 4) Polymorph, 5) Planar Binding/Gate spells. And that is to say nothing of knowledge checks.

The other reasons you might have a DMG is: 1) So you know how wind affects work, 2) You intend to craft some traps, 3) You intend on flying, 4) You might like to buy or craft magic items, 5) You might want to break through a wall, 6) You just happen to have brought all your books, and the DMG is one of them.

Compare that to the only reason the DMG would discouraged at all: You either have not made clear, or do not trust your players to follow, what you consider the correct procedure in bringing up rule issues.

Colmarr
2008-08-26, 08:19 PM
Air speed modifiers to ranged attacks? That's just the DM going, "Uh... it's a strong wind at your back. Take a shot, and see what happens?" The PC's don't need to know what the modifier IS. It's not relevant.

I disagree.

A -2 penalty can at low levels equate to a 20% lower chance of hitting (8/20 as opposed to 10/20). To argue that a character could be in the presence of such a wind and not have some idea of how much of an obstacle it represents is IMO ridiculous.

In those circumstances, the DM should tell the players what the penalty is, if for no other reason than the words used by the DM to convey information to the players can never equate to the in-game sensory input that the character receives.

"Strong wind" might mean different things to different people, and even a more objective measure ("a 20mph wind") is only useful if the player has something to compare it to (I have no idea how blustery a 20mph wind is). Conversely, if my character is standing in the middle of that wind, he would know how much it's going to affect his shot.

Only if the DM is able to somehow recreate the effect for his players (such as by bringing an industrial fan to his session) would I back the DM up on this one.

Ulzgoroth
2008-08-26, 08:37 PM
I think expecting people to listen to the GM as rules referee is wrongheaded.

The GM does have to referee rules, certainly, to keep everyone playing the same game. But, really, not many people are good enough to be right all the time. Certainly not all GMs are. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a player knowing the rule better than the GM. In some group dynamics, it might be wrong to correct the GM. This is not because the GM is the referee on rules, it's because it's disruptive and at best not necessarily worthwhile.

Players should listen to the GM as the GM. The GM is running the game, which ought to make most of what they're saying more interesting than your rules issue.

The GM can get the rules wrong, and it shouldn't be a big problem. The GM can yield a rules point that they got wrong, and it shouldn't be a problem, or they can change the rules to fit the ruling, and that shouldn't be a problem either. Unless the GM is changing the rules in a way not acceptable to the group, in which case them being able to call it out is a good thing.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 08:46 PM
I think expecting people to listen to the GM as rules referee is wrongheaded.

It just depends on the way the game is set up. If it is set up with the expectation that the game master will interpret the rules of the game in the manner he thinks best, then that is his role. If an adventure game with a lot of rules is set up with the expectation that the game master will do his best to obey them exactly as they are written, then distributing the responsibility of remembering them amongst the participants is probably a better way to go, and a copy of all the rules pertinant to the game should be available to players and game master alike (though all will need to be aware which optional and house rules are in play).

Jayabalard
2008-08-26, 08:51 PM
The GM does have to referee rules, certainly, to keep everyone playing the same game. But, really, not many people are good enough to be right all the time. But they are; all GMs are always correct at the time that they make their ruling. Even if the Rules in the book say something different.


Conversely, if my character is standing in the middle of that wind, he would know how much it's going to affect his shot.Not so; your character would know what the wind is like where they are standing but that may not have anything to do with what the wind is like between them and their target. Even if the wind is consistant, no gusts all blowing in the same direction with no eddies or other currents they would not know that a particular speed of wind would reduce their chance of hitting by 10% or 20%. They'd know how to compensate for it surely, but that's already accounted for in their BAB.

There's no reason for them to know the precise penalty involved; it's not something your character would know.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 08:53 PM
But they are; all GMs are always correct at the time that they make their ruling. Even if the Rules in the book say something different.

I think he means in situations where the game master claims to be using the rule as written, but has in fact misremembered it and would be grateful and open to being corrected by a player who remembers it right, such as:



GM: So, a fifth level barbarian has a base attack bonus of five...
PC: Six.
GM: Ah right, my mistake.

arguskos
2008-08-26, 08:55 PM
The GM can get the rules wrong, and it shouldn't be a big problem. The GM can yield a rules point that they got wrong, and it shouldn't be a problem, or they can change the rules to fit the ruling, and that shouldn't be a problem either. Unless the GM is changing the rules in a way not acceptable to the group, in which case them being able to call it out is a good thing.
Of course, the GM is human after all. However, the place for it is NOT in session, where it bogs down play immeasurably. The GM should make a ruling, stick to it for that session, and actually sit down with the player and figure out a standing houserule later (read: after the session is over). That way, the players know the GM is being fair to their requests, and the GM keeps the game moving at a good pace.


In those circumstances, the DM should tell the players what the penalty is, if for no other reason than the words used by the DM to convey information to the players can never equate to the in-game sensory input that the character receives.
I'd agree with this in theory, but it's never really mattered in practice for me. My players always go like this:
"Ok, I take a shot. Does... 17 hit?"
*checks wind modifier* "No, the wind blows your arrow just off-course enough that you miss."
"Damn, well, I'll try once more, just in case. Does a... 21 hit?"
*checks wind modifier* "Yeah, the wind buffets it, but your shot was spot on enough that you *just* got him. Roll damage."

And so on. I make sure to describe things well, so the player can either, A) put it together himself, or B) realize the gist of the modifier. I feel no need to share the numbers behind the screen, just as I feel no need to tell them the dungeon layout. I *could* do so, but it's not necessary in my games. Perhaps you've had a different experience. If so, then just do what works for you. :smallsmile:

-argus

Raum
2008-08-26, 09:01 PM
The assertion is that the rules of the game are important, but the game world reality takes precedent. No rules can be the physics of the game world (well maybe if they actually describe the physics), they can only stand in for them. When they fail to describe something, that is just their nature (it is to be expected), and the game master should feel free to discard the rule in that case (in my opinion).I agree. I'm simply advocating the GM communicate a consistent ruling. Otherwise his world is inconsistent.


As far as hiding rules go, there's nothing wrong with players figuring out the armour class of monsters. There is no need to tell them they are right or wrong, though. Whether the players know the rules or not isn't usually a concern for me. I play in groups where some know them very well ["Two Handed Swords are +3 versus Armour Class 7."], and others have no interest in them at all ["Which die do I roll?"].I've played with a similar variety of players. For that matter, we all start off not knowing the rules when starting a new system.

I simply don't see any reason to intentionally obfuscate rules.

ZerglingOne
2008-08-26, 09:03 PM
If it's an intentional change and they start to argue about it, strike them with lightning from the skies sending them to -9 stabilized (cauterized) and ask if anyone else wants to defy god. That's what I do if it's an intentional change and they want to argue.

If it's a misconception you have though and someone recalls it being different, then it's YOUR responsibility to look it up in the DM guide. The players should only ever have a PHB and whatever rulebook they need for prestige classes if they want.

Edit: Furthermore, only 1 set of books should ever be used. It helps establish order amongst the PCs and prevents everyone from having their nose buried in a book all the time.

Matthew
2008-08-26, 09:07 PM
I agree. I'm simply advocating the GM communicate a consistent ruling. Otherwise his world is inconsistent.

I was just disagreeing with the bit where you wrote "They're the 'physics' of the fictional world." The consistancy factor is another issue, and probably worth its own thread [i.e. I am undecided].



I've played with a similar variety of players. For that matter, we all start off not knowing the rules when starting a new system.

I simply don't see any reason to intentionally obfuscate rules.

Nor I, though I prefer to have as few of them as possible.

Raum
2008-08-26, 09:20 PM
I was just disagreeing with the bit where you wrote "They're the 'physics' of the fictional world." That may just be a difference in terminology. It's simpler, and more correct, to say game mechanics are how characters interact with the game world. Maybe they're the Newtonian physics...or I'll just give up my analogy and concede physics was a poor word choice. :smalleek:

Matthew
2008-08-26, 09:26 PM
That may just be a difference in terminology. It's simpler, and more correct, to say game mechanics are how characters interact with the game world. Maybe they're the Newtonian physics...or I'll just give up my analogy and concede physics was a poor word choice. :smalleek:

Ah right, I see; a misunderstanding on my part, then. Glad of it! :smallbiggrin:

Kompera
2008-08-26, 10:02 PM
Kompera: The good GM tries to create a game setting in which the players can feel comfortable, as if they have actually grown up there and they actually know how things work.
Nagora: Yes.

Kompera: This understanding comes from the rules
Nagora: No.

What then, does it come from, if not from the rules? I imagine my character is an excellent swimmer. But without access to the rules of the game on swimming, I have no real clue how good a swimmer my character really is, or what stats influence my chances to swim well or what modifiers there are for wearing heavy gear.

So, as you describe things, the player should say to the GM:
"I dive into the water and swim to shore, because I'm just that good at swimming."
And then the GM says to the player:
"I've just looked up the swimming rules. You have a 15% chance to make it to shore safely. The other 85% chance you drown. Roll it."

No.

The player, and forgive me for raising my voice, has to have some freaking clue as to what his character is capable of doing. And this capability is wholly and completely defined by the rules of the game.. And this understanding needs to be as intuitive as possible, so that the player doesn't need to ask what his chances are before declaring an action, or ask for a do over all the time because the odds turn out to be different than he was conceptualizing when he decided on some course of action.

Without an understanding of what their character is capable of doing, which again is only defined by the rules of the game, the player is left adrift and detached from the game setting. What he thinks might or should be possible for his character to accomplish may be impossible or improbable. What the player thinks might be improbable to impossible for his character to accomplish may be very probable or even guaranteed of success.

All of this is solely defined by the rules, and has nothing to do with the skill of the GM.


But changes to DMG rules that have not been used in play in this campaign before do not need to be explained. Ever.Yes, they do. You're playing an open ended game. Players make decisions about their characters all the time, and many of them are building them towards some goal. If that goal is as simple as "Whirlwind Attack Feat" and only once they fulfill the prerequisites and state they they are buying the Whirlwind Attack Feat do you inform them that you've house ruled this out of your campaign, expect that the player will be upset and justifiably so. The premise is that the players are playing Game X. The expectation is that it is indeed Game X, except as made note of by the GM via his published house rules. The secret rule change just does not fly, even if it is a change to a 9th level spell and the players are all 2nd level. There is no rational reason to keep such changes hidden from the players.


I sometimes wonder if you read the bits in my posts about consistancy.Consistency has a definition. A group of players sitting down to play Game X and learning after 10 game sessions of 4 hours each that some rules were secretly modified does not fulfill that definition. If you are going to expound upon consistency, then be consistent about it.


A good RPG doesn't even try [top define what the players can do].We must not play the same RPGs. Or we must have very different definitions of what constitutes a good RPG. Because I maintain that an RPG cannot be good, at all, if the rules do not define what the player characters are capable of doing.


A DM who resorts to explaining everything in terms of rules is not worthy of the title.Nice straw man. I never said the GM had to explain things in terms of the rules, did I? No, I did not. I said that the players needed to understand what their characters were capable of doing, and that this understanding came from the rules of the game.

Swordguy
2008-08-26, 10:14 PM
The player, and forgive me for raising my voice, has to have some freaking clue as to what his character is capable of doing. And this capability is wholly and completely defined by the rules of the game.. And this understanding needs to be as intuitive as possible, so that the player doesn't need to ask what his chances are before declaring an action, or ask for a do over all the time because the odds turn out to be different than he was conceptualizing when he decided on some course of action.

...

All of this is solely defined by the rules, and has nothing to do with the skill of the GM.

If this is true, why do many, many games have specific sections and guides for what a GM should do when the PCs want to do something that explicitly isn't covered by the rules?

Or do you believe that if it's not covered by the rules, you may not take the action?

valadil
2008-08-26, 10:39 PM
What then, does it come from, if not from the rules? I imagine my character is an excellent swimmer. But without access to the rules of the game on swimming, I have no real clue how good a swimmer my character really is, or what stats influence my chances to swim well or what modifiers there are for wearing heavy gear.


The rules provide a representation for the understanding of a character. When I make a character I come up with the personality/history/goals/etc. When I have the opportunity to play in a game I take that character and map him to the rules system that is present. A good set of rules will accurately represent a character's abilities. So if I want to play Michael Phelps, I'll max out my swim ability and better not have an appreciable chance of drowning in swimming pool conditions.

Kompera
2008-08-26, 10:41 PM
If this is true, why do many, many games have specific sections and guides for what a GM should do when the PCs want to do something that explicitly isn't covered by the rules?

Or do you believe that if it's not covered by the rules, you may not take the action?
I appreciate the support, even though I'm quite aware that you did not intend to provide such.

Clearly, if the players understand the rules of the game then they will naturally understand what actions which they might take shall require GM fiat.

How was that hard?


The rules provide a representation for the understanding of a character. When I make a character I come up with the personality/history/goals/etc. When I have the opportunity to play in a game I take that character and map him to the rules system that is present. A good set of rules will accurately represent a character's abilities. So if I want to play Michael Phelps, I'll max out my swim ability and better not have an appreciable chance of drowning in swimming pool conditions.
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.

Swordguy
2008-08-26, 11:11 PM
I appreciate the support, even though I'm quite aware that you did not intend to provide such.

Clearly, if the players understand the rules of the game then they will naturally understand what actions which they might take shall require GM fiat.

How was that hard?


You misunderstand. I'm not saying they can't read the stuff away from the table, I encourage it, to some degree, so they might know the rules and be enlightened. But at the table, the only purpose having the DMG readily-accessible has (PrCs aside) is to promote the OOC adversarial atmosphere that inevitably arises when every ad-hoc ruling the GM might make is picked apart by rules lawyers who refuse to accept that the GM's ruling is, during play, final. Because the ruling is final, there is no need for the players to have ready access to the book.

And promoting an OOC adversarial atmosphere between players and GMs is playing wrong. Yes, you can play wrong.

If you're incapable of trust in the GM, then you shouldn't be playing. If the GM isn't worthy of your trust, then you shouldn't be playing with him. End of story.

Akimbo
2008-08-27, 12:08 AM
You misunderstand. I'm not saying they can't read the stuff away from the table, I encourage it, to some degree, so they might know the rules and be enlightened. But at the table, the only purpose having the DMG readily-accessible has (PrCs aside) is to promote the OOC adversarial atmosphere that inevitably arises when every ad-hoc ruling the GM might make is picked apart by rules lawyers who refuse to accept that the GM's ruling is, during play, final. Because the ruling is final, there is no need for the players to have ready access to the book.

And promoting an OOC adversarial atmosphere between players and GMs is playing wrong. Yes, you can play wrong.

If you're incapable of trust in the GM, then you shouldn't be playing. If the GM isn't worthy of your trust, then you shouldn't be playing with him. End of story.

This is funny coming from the DM who cannot trust his players to know what is and isn't acceptable at the table, and so insists they make photocopies of the parts of the book they need, because he won't allow them to have it at the table, because he doesn't trust him.

But once again, let's try this one more time: They might need the DMG to reference any of the 5 or so sections of rules in it that their character would know. Or they might want to look it up to correct the DM.

{Scrubbed} Then they can point to a specific passage and hand you the book when you aren't busy and neither are they, and then you can read it, and you'll know for the future.

Hey look, problem solved, no one was hurt in any way, and {scrubbed}

Duos Greanleef
2008-08-27, 12:15 AM
Rules of Dungeons And Dragons Role Playing Games in general.
Rule 0: everyone needs to have fun.
Rule 1: I am DM.
Rule 2: If you dislike rule 1, do so at your own PC's risk.

Swordguy
2008-08-27, 12:17 AM
This is funny coming from the DM who cannot trust his players to know what is and isn't acceptable at the table, and so insists they make photocopies of the parts of the book they need, because he won't allow them to have it at the table, because he doesn't trust him.

But once again, let's try this one more time: They might need the DMG to reference any of the 5 or so sections of rules in it that their character would know. Or they might want to look it up to correct the DM.

{Scrubbed} Then they can point to a specific passage and hand you the book when you aren't busy and neither are they, and then you can read it, and you'll know for the future.

Hey look, problem solved, no one was hurt in any way, and {Scrubbed}.

I'm so glad that there's no other options for you besides "I get do what I want at the table and the hell with respecting the GM" and "you're a domineering jerk for keeping me from doing what I want." What part of "I encourage it (reading the rules), to some degree, so they might know the rules and be enlightened" did you not get?

A large number of very respected types here have tried to point out why they might want to restrict access to books that by their very titles imply limited player access. They've also pointed out that it's a matter of respect and trust between players and GMs that the players shouldn't NEED to feel they have to have the DMG ready to catch the GM is a moment of error - that both parties need to trust the other to do their jobs. You've responded with nothing but hostility, invective, and an insistence that the only valid way to play is your way.

As such, I'm also very glad you're simply an opinionated bunch of electrons on "teh internets", because if you were a real person, you'd never play at my table. Congratulations for being the very first name on my ignore list. Kompera, I'm more than willing to continue the conversation - you've been naught but respectful to everyone else for this thread.

Helgraf
2008-08-27, 12:32 AM
If you have the free time I'd advise going through it with the PCs who can summon and writing up all their possible summons on index cards. If you google around I think you can find pdfs for just that purpose (some of which include augment summoning). If your players are looking up monster stats, you've got a problem.

This is how it should work. Then there's no need for a Monster Manual of any grade and no ... ahem ... temptation.

When I start a 3.5 game, if there's a yahoo!group associated with it (and there usually will be if it's a campaign), one of the first files I put up is the stats for familiars, so that those who use them also don't have a reason/excuse for using a monster manual.

Justin_Bacon
2008-08-27, 12:48 AM
I now want to contact all my players and tell them that on the days I will be running to leave their DMGs and MMs at home, or to hand them to me at the very start of our gaming sessions if they must bring them.

You can make a pretty decent case to me for banning table access to the MM (although I'm not sure it really matters), but I'm not sure I see any rationale for banning the DMG.

I mean, unless you're running the adventure from Chapter 11 of the 4th Edition DMG, what material are you trying to keep secret, exactly?


You misunderstand. I'm not saying they can't read the stuff away from the table, I encourage it, to some degree, so they might know the rules and be enlightened. But at the table, the only purpose having the DMG readily-accessible has (PrCs aside) is to promote the OOC adversarial atmosphere that inevitably arises when every ad-hoc ruling the GM might make is picked apart by rules lawyers who refuse to accept that the GM's ruling is, during play, final. Because the ruling is final, there is no need for the players to have ready access to the book.

Personally, I value legitimate rules-lawyers at my table. Nobody's perfect, and being able to draw not only on my expertise but the expertise of everyone sitting at my gaming table is a resource, not a liability.

Now, if you've got a player who's using anal retentiveness and selective reading to twist the rules to his own advantage and then disrupting the game for everybody else through his behavior... well, that's a different problem. But it's not a problem that confiscating his rulebooks is going to solve.

Kompera
2008-08-27, 01:09 AM
You misunderstand. I'm not saying they can't read the stuff away from the table, I encourage it, to some degree, so they might know the rules and be enlightened. But at the table, the only purpose having the DMG readily-accessible has (PrCs aside) is to promote the OOC adversarial atmosphere that inevitably arises when every ad-hoc ruling the GM might make is picked apart by rules lawyers who refuse to accept that the GM's ruling is, during play, final. Because the ruling is final, there is no need for the players to have ready access to the book.

And promoting an OOC adversarial atmosphere between players and GMs is playing wrong. Yes, you can play wrong.

If you're incapable of trust in the GM, then you shouldn't be playing. If the GM isn't worthy of your trust, then you shouldn't be playing with him. End of story.

If you're incapable of trust in the GM? What trust are you referring to? If the GM makes a bad call on a rule, then he has lost the trust the players have in him to get the rules right. So it's not at all that I can't or don't trust the GM. That isn't up to me. It's up to the GM to establish trust with the players. And the easiest way he can do this is by knowing the rules and getting them right, and that would of course include his own house rules.

I'd also dispute that there is no other purpose in having the rules available other than to dispute them with the GM. The rules may end up being disputed, but that does not have to be the case. It's very possible that the GM simply makes a wrong call on the rules, and if a player correct him it's always nice to be able to back up that correction with a reference to the rule in question. So if the GM is corrected and this is verified and the GM chooses to then play by the rules, where is the dispute? There is none, because it takes two to have a dispute. But if the GM feels that any correction is some kind of challenge to his "authority", and refuses to accept any correction of a mistake he makes, then there is a dispute, and it's caused by the GM. And it is the GM who apparently can not trust his players and not the other way around.

I'm pretty sure, based on what you wrote above, that you feel that the correction simply should not be made. Because your position is that every ad-hoc ruling the GM makes is final. And that to play other wise is to play wrong.

But I disagree. If I'm playing a game, and I get my understanding for what my character can accomplish from the rules, and if there is a situation where the GM has a different understanding simply because he is unaware of the rule in question, then I'm going to point this out. Because I signed up to play Game X, not to play "Game X except when the GM gets the rules wrong." The GM who randomly makes up rules or changes the rules as he goes along is promoting an OOC adversarial atmosphere between the players and GM. If it's unimportant, I'll probably just let it go with whatever ad-hoc thing the GM came up with, after stating the correct rule. But if it makes a difference on my characters impact on the game, and if there has been no published house rule which would give me any expectation that the situation should be handled differently, then I'll expect that the rules be followed except in the case where the GM says that following the written rules would have a negative impact upon his game setting or the story arc. That is always an acceptable override of the rules, but anything else is arbitrary and biased and does not promote good role play or immersion.

Thrud
2008-08-27, 01:29 AM
I've always asked my players not to use anything other than the PHB and whatever relevant book they need for their prestige class. And even then I ask that they don't use them during actual game time. (I have breaks set up when we can deal with OOC concerns.) Otherwise my general rule is that if you are sitting at the table you are talking as your character unless you specificically look at me and say 'rules clarification please'. And even then I try to keep it as short as possible. I find the game keeps a much more immersive feel if the only thing on the table is the character sheet and some dice. Each time someone is flipping through their books they are being disrespectful to whomever else is doing something at the time, by ignoring them, or being dumb by ignoring me. As the DM everything I say has some import on the game, and you ignore it at your peril. That way I can get players to bring up major rules issues when everyone is not immersed in playing their character.

I don't think there is any need for anyone to ever be flipping through books during a game. All you have to do is know your own character's abilities. You don't have to know anything else that isn't relavant. So what the heck do you need the books for other than contradicting another player (something I will take care of) or contradicting me (which 99% of the time can wait for a little while until we break for OOC concerns.)

turkishproverb
2008-08-27, 01:37 AM
Wile most of what THrud said is play style differences for me, I am curious how he feels about the fact he's already utilizing rule 0 by not having people open PHB's during the game. Also, I think it might be a little harshe to keep the books away simply because not everyone has the ability to memorize rules the way some do.

Thrud
2008-08-27, 01:58 AM
Wile most of what THrud said is play style differences for me, I am curious how he feels about the fact he's already utilizing rule 0 by not having people open PHB's during the game. Also, I think it might be a little harshe to keep the books away simply because not everyone has the ability to memorize rules the way some do.

Nah, I'm not that harsh. I just ask, not demand. But if you have reasonable players and ask them to do something to help immersive gameplay, then they tend to try to do it. Plus, all they have to do is ask me for a rule clarification, if they are unsure of something. I admit that this technique is harder for inexperienced gamers, but it is still doable. But I never enforce the rule. Still, I have found that if I ask it, then over time the disruptions become less and less, and eventually pretty much stop.

turkishproverb
2008-08-27, 02:00 AM
Nah, I'm not that harsh. I just ask, not demand. But if you have reasonable players and ask them to do something to help immersive gameplay, then they tend to try to do it. Plus, all they have to do is ask me for a rule clarification, if they are unsure of something. I admit that this technique is harder for inexperienced gamers, but it is still doable. But I never enforce the rule. Still, I have found that if I ask it, then over time the disruptions become less and less, and eventually pretty much stop.

Just curious. IF I'm saying something is play style I'm usually not being too critical. And your explanation makes it sound even less worrisome.

nagora
2008-08-27, 06:15 AM
Did you miss the part where that's exactly what Nago and Tormsskull say good DMs do?

(Actually, Tormsskull says it's his preference, Nago says that you are an absolutely terrible DM if your players know the rules.)
Where did I say that?


The only dictionary definition that even vaguely fits "fluff" in this context is "something of little consequence", whereas "crunch" likely derives its meaning from "to perform mathematical computations."
Actually, in the context of this definition of "crunch" from the OED, it is clear why it is paired with "fluff":

Critical, decisive, crucial; involving or arising from a crisis.
Thus we have "down to the crunch" and similar phrases which use the word to signify something important, while "fluff" is of course a term universally used for something unimportant (or hairy, which I don't think applies :smallsmile:). I do not believe that this paring of words was not choosen to stress the superiority of one style of play (rules lawyer) over another (character-centred). The "number crunching" interpretation is a plausable-sounding canard, IMO.

Tormsskull
2008-08-27, 06:43 AM
The bottom line is that it is all preferential, I just wish we could get that baseline through so we could move on with this discussion.

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.

It seems to me, from reading the books (mainly 3e here) and extrapolating, that conditions/effects that directly impact the character are often given in mechanical terms to the player ("You are cursed, you suffer a -4 penalty to your attack rolls"). Whereas if these conditions/effects affect the opponent or a 3rd party, they are not given to the player (The mage waves his hand and his skin seems to get harder).

Some people (myself included) would prefer that the exact mechanical terms were not given to the player ("You are cursed. You feel weak, but not physically so. An air of unpleasentness and uneasiness washes over you.). Other people would prefer mechanics were given for everything (The mage waves his hand and his skin gets harder. This has increased his armor class to 22.)

IME, if you play D&D like it is a tactics-based game, you'll like style #2. You want to test your ability at mastering a system, understanding the rules, knowing all of the possibilities and modifiers against the DM's skills. That could be a fun way to play.

IME, if you play D&D like is a story-based game, you'll like style #1. You want to bring your character to life on screen, and everytime mechanics are thrown out you lose a bit of immersion.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 07:22 AM
Where did I say that?

Nowhere. I even went back through the thread and had a look through your posts. Akimbo, on the other hand, quite early on seems to decided that is indeed what you are saying.



Actually, in the context of this definition of "crunch" from the OED, it is clear why it is paired with "fluff":

Thus we have "down to the crunch" and similar phrases which use the word to signify something important, while "fluff" is of course a term universally used for something unimportant (or hairy, which I don't think applies :smallsmile:). I do not believe that this paring of words was not choosen to stress the superiority of one style of play (rules lawyer) over another (character-centred). The "number crunching" interpretation is a plausable-sounding canard, IMO.

Could well be, though I prefer to take a more charitable view.



The bottom line is that it is all preferential, I just wish we could get that baseline through so we could move on with this discussion.

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.

Indeed. It's very odd to me that somebody is more comfortable with "Swimming +4" as the definition of "good at swimming" than the actual words "good at swimming". The game reality is being interpreted from the numbers using the language of math rather than from interaction with people using actual language. Basically it comes down to "You cannot deny the absolute reality of 1, and 1+1 = 2." I wonder if this is an arts/science divide...

hamlet
2008-08-27, 07:28 AM
Actually, given the circumstances, I don't believe the truces were a fluke, but that's another conversation. And the battle of Towton was huge, so it's not one to two idiots but hundreds - thousands - of archers wasting their arrows in snow and wind. They just kept trying.

Probably closer to 10,000 considering that nearly 1% of the entire population of Britain at the time died (not fought, DIED) at that battle.

Though to be entirely fair to the Lancasters, the Yorkist archers were rather clever in how they dealt with it. Fire a few volleys and then retreat out of range. Then swoop in and collect the enemy arrows and return them.

Knaight
2008-08-27, 07:37 AM
Alternatively he could use the actual rules for wind in the DMG, and then he could just say Stong Wind and it would mean -2 penalty every time.

And if he wanted to have a -4 penalty he could say that it is a Severe wind.

But he has to actually follow the rules for that method of description to work instead of just making up numbers every five seconds.

So apparently there is nothing in between as a -3, or in between severe and gale force, which I believe is a -8, meaining that there are no -5, -6, or -7 winds.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 07:46 AM
So apparently there is nothing in between as a -3, or in between severe and gale force, which I believe is a -8, meaining that there are no -5, -6, or -7 winds.

That appears to be the case. As I said, Akimbo nicely (but likely accidently) reinforces the point of the example by treating adjectives as code words for math.

Akimbo
2008-08-27, 07:50 AM
So apparently there is nothing in between as a -3, or in between severe and gale force, which I believe is a -8, meaining that there are no -5, -6, or -7 winds.

Not only is there no -3, -5, -6, -7, there is no -8, because windstorm, the next level makes ranged attacks of any kind (other then a specific clause allowing siege weapons and giants throwing boulders) impossible.

Is there any particular reason why not being able to apply every possible variable penalty in the game with wind alone detracts from your game?


That appears to be the case. As I said, Akimbo nicely (but likely accidently) reinforces the point of the example by treating adjectives as code words for math.

Actually, I treat it as code words for rules. Because if you say Strong Wind, then not only do I know how it effects my ranged attacks, I also know whether or not I can walk or fly forward against the wind.

Something which is rather important to know.

Knaight
2008-08-27, 07:56 AM
Maybe. I haven't checked the rules for a while now. That said you can just refer to the wind as strong, or really strong, or describe its effects, which does the exact same thing. The players don't need to know exactly how powerful the wind is, if they see a few leaves blowing around, and are easily standing the shots not going to be all that much more difficult. If shingles are being blown off the roof, and entire branches are flying through the air, that shot probably isn't going to work very well. The exact number isn't important.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 07:57 AM
Actually, I treat it as code words for rules. Because if you say Strong Wind, then not only do I know how it effects my ranged attacks, I also know whether or not I can walk or fly forward against the wind.

Something which is rather important to know.

That is the same thing [i.e. the rules are math], and does not at all change the significance. The rules of the game are only as important as a given group wants them to be (and only as fixed). It is obvious that the precise rules of the game are very important to you, but consider for a moment that this may not be the case for everyone, and also that this might be just as valid a mode of play as the one you favour.

Akimbo
2008-08-27, 08:01 AM
I'm so glad that there's no other options for you besides "I get do what I want at the table and the hell with respecting the GM" and "you're a domineering jerk for keeping me from doing what I want." What part of "I encourage it (reading the rules), to some degree, so they might know the rules and be enlightened" did you not get?

There are plenty of other options, you just dismiss them all out of hand, because they involve trusting your players, something you have clearly stated you are unwilling to do in even the slightest way by forcing them to xerox their own books because you are afraid of them having rules.


A large number of very respected types here have tried to point out why they might want to restrict access to books that by their very titles imply limited player access. They've also pointed out that it's a matter of respect and trust between players and GMs that the players shouldn't NEED to feel they have to have the DMG ready to catch the GM is a moment of error - that both parties need to trust the other to do their jobs. You've responded with nothing but hostility, invective, and an insistence that the only valid way to play is your way.

1) So you and some other people like 2e better then 3e, that doesn't make you very respected. Don't kid yourself.

2) It's not a matter of respect and trust between the players and the DM. It's a matter of trusting and respecting the DM when he does not trust or respect you.

No one has anywhere said that players need to have the DMG to catch the DM in a mistake, that is one benefit, and a DM should see that as a benefit, but the primary purpose of having the DMG, or any other book, is to be able to know the rules themselves.


As such, I'm also very glad you're simply an opinionated bunch of electrons on "teh internets", because if you were a real person, you'd never play at my table. Congratulations for being the very first name on my ignore list.

I'm personally glad you are a human being that is far away across the internet, because if you were actually my DM, I would have to find another group, both because I personally do not enjoy playing 2e, and because I as a human being demand that those who would have me respect and trust them, return the favor, something you have made very clear you do not do with your players.

Tormsskull
2008-08-27, 08:02 AM
Actually, I treat it as code words for rules. Because if you say Strong Wind, then not only do I know how it effects my ranged attacks, I also know whether or not I can walk or fly forward against the wind.


This thought just occured to me (totally based on using an EXTREME example, of course).

DM: "You're walking through the forest, when you think you see a path through the woods. It-"
Player: "Do I have full cover between the path at my present location?"
DM: "Sure. It is a small path, not well maintained, and there is a lot of rubble strewn-"
Player: "Does the rubble cause it to become difficult terrain? Will I lose movement if I try to move through it?
DM: "Probably not."
Player: "What do you mean probably not? I need to know for sure."
DM: "Ok, no, you wouldn't. Just before your group gets to the path, you can feel the wind start to pick up."
Player: "Now, would you classify this wind as light, moderate or strong?"
DM: *Shoots self in head*

Matthew
2008-08-27, 08:08 AM
1) So you and some other people like 2e better then 3e, that doesn't make you very respected. Don't kid yourself.

Akimbo, don't turn this into something it isn't.



I'm personally glad you are a human being that is far away across the internet, because if you were actually my DM, I would have to find another group, both because I personally do not enjoy playing 2e, and because I as a human being demand that those who would have me respect and trust them, return the favor, something you have made very clear you do not do with your players.

Let's try and keep calm, these aren't the Wizards of the Coast forums after all. I don't see what the problem is here. You don't like playstyle X, that's fine. It doesn't mean playstyle X is wrong, it just means it's wrong for you. No big deal, and hardly a surprise that two people with different playstyle preferences are disinclined to game together.

Raum
2008-08-27, 08:09 AM
The bottom line is that it is all preferential, I just wish we could get that baseline through so we could move on with this discussion.

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. I agree, it's preferential and will change based on group dynamics. So why "call shananigans"? It appears you're saying it's "based on preference but your preference is wrong if it's not mine". I'm fairly sure that's not what you intended to say, but the appearance is there.


The reason why you want the exact numerical effects is because you want to know the odds of successfully doing whatever you're attempting.For the sake of argument lets assume this is true. So what? What's wrong with calculating odds? I make similar subjective judgments (as opposed to quantitative) in daily life. I'm fairly certain I can jump over that puddle...I'm fairly certain I don't want to jump from a third story balcony...etc. Game mechanics are how a player makes the same judgments for his character.

Back to preference, it's certainly possible for the player to ask the GM for a judgment every time they want to do something. Yet many prefer not to do so. As GM I prefer not to have to answer those questions...they distract me from the game's story and plot details. As player, I still wonder why I can't make those call for my character. For that matter, I want to interpret the game mechanics based on my characters personality. If he's cautious he may walk around the puddle. And, if he's reckless, he may jump off that balcony.


It seems to me, from reading the books (mainly 3e here) and extrapolating, that conditions/effects that directly impact the character are often given in mechanical terms to the player ("You are cursed, you suffer a -4 penalty to your attack rolls"). Whereas if these conditions/effects affect the opponent or a 3rd party, they are not given to the player (The mage waves his hand and his skin seems to get harder).

Some people (myself included) would prefer that the exact mechanical terms were not given to the player ("You are cursed. You feel weak, but not physically so. An air of unpleasentness and uneasiness washes over you.). Other people would prefer mechanics were given for everything (The mage waves his hand and his skin gets harder. This has increased his armor class to 22.)Either method is workable. One caveat though, I advocate rule transparency not necessarily NPC stat transparency*. There's a difference. Knowing the rules helps a player make in character decisions. Stats are something you typically need to observe and extrapolate from effects.


IME, if you play D&D like it is a tactics-based game, you'll like style #2. You want to test your ability at mastering a system, understanding the rules, knowing all of the possibilities and modifiers against the DM's skills. That could be a fun way to play.

IME, if you play D&D like is a story-based game, you'll like style #1. You want to bring your character to life on screen, and everytime mechanics are thrown out you lose a bit of immersion.I don't think it's that cut and dry. In my experience, story immersion starts to break when players have to stop play and ask for a judgment call from the GM. When they know the potential results of an action quick decisions, continuous play, and immersion seem to support each other.

Sigh, work calls...I'll follow up later.

*Edit: PC character stats should generally be transparent.

Akimbo
2008-08-27, 08:11 AM
Where did I say that?

Well:


As such, a player not only does not have a right to look such things up in play but actually should be prevented from doing so. A player who looks up such information is cheating while a player who attempts to quote them to a DM after the DM has said that s/he is doing it another way is being a pain in the neck and should be excluded if they persist. In that context, players having DMGs is counter-productive for the most part.

A player looking up the rules is cheating? Really?

Not to mention your several times stating that a good RPG has no rules (that matter).

Matthew
2008-08-27, 08:12 AM
A player looking up the rules is cheating? Really?

Not to mention your several times stating that a good RPG has no rules (that matter).

You're reading it wrong. That's not "player's shouldn't have access to the DMG", that's "players shouldn't have access to the DMG in play."

Tormsskull
2008-08-27, 08:17 AM
I agree, it's preferential and will change based on group dynamics. So why "call shananigans"? It appears you're saying it's "based on preference but your preference is wrong if it's not mine". I'm fairly sure that's not what you intended to say, but the appearance is there.


Not at all. I'm saying if your preference is "I want to know all the numerical/mechanical effects when something comes up" then simply say that.



For the sake of argument lets assume this is true. So what? What's wrong with calculating odds?

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.

Akimbo
2008-08-27, 08:18 AM
Akimbo, don't turn this into something it isn't.

I'm not turning it into anything, Sword Guy has decided that you, Tormsskull, and himself are "respected individuals" and that I am not, and has then proceeded to argue from authority, in this case, his own.

It does not surprise me that he considers himself above other people given that he has already expressed exactly that opinion as regards his own players.

I consider this his misfortune.


Let's try and keep calm, these aren't the Wizards of the Coast forums after all. I don't see what the problem is here. You don't like playstyle X, that's fine. It doesn't mean playstyle X is wrong, it just means it's wrong for you. No big deal, and hardly a surprise that two people with different playstyle preferences are disinclined to game together.

I am very calm. There is, as far as I can see, no problem, other then an inherent disregard for me as a human being (going so far as to declare that I am not one) but I am not worried about it as such, because he is not likely to act on that disregard in any way that effects me significantly.

Akimbo
2008-08-27, 08:19 AM
You're reading it wrong. That's not "player's shouldn't have access to the DMG", that's "players shouldn't have access to the DMG in play."

So knowing the rules is okay, as long as you don't know the rules in play? He specifically said that knowing those rules is cheating.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 08:25 AM
I'm not turning it into anything, Sword Guy has decided that you, Tormsskull, and himself are "respected individuals" and that I am not, and has then proceeded to argue from authority, in this case, his own.

It does not surprise me that he considers himself above other people given that he has already expressed exactly that opinion as regards his own players.

I consider this his misfortune.

You are assuming things. SwordGuy doesn't even play 2e (or AD&D) as far as I am aware. Last I heard he was playing 4e. Besides which you are ignoring the D20 folk he is likely referring to.



I am very calm. There is, as far as I can see, no problem, other then an inherent disregard for me as a human being (going so far as to declare that I am not one) but I am not worried about it as such, because he is not likely to act on that disregard in any way that effects me significantly.

You are reading things into what he said.



So knowing the rules is okay, as long as you don't know the rules in play? He specifically said that knowing those rules is cheating.

No, he said looking them up in the DMG in the middle of the game is cheating. I don't pretend to know exactly what he means by that, but that is a far cry from "hide the rules from the players".

Akimbo
2008-08-27, 08:27 AM
Tormsskull:

1) You misunderstand completely, I do not advocate knowing all the numbers, or knowing things my character would not know. In you first example, with the mage casting something? can't remember, but:

You are cursed, you feel weak, ect. -4 penalty to X/Y/Z. Ideally, the character might know in advance that it is a -4 penalty and the DM would not need to spell it out.

Then when the mage casts something, his skin thickens, turn rocky, ect. (spellcraft check, you recognize his spell as Iron Body). (No need to know his base AC, but given sufficient interaction with him, you might figure that out.)

2) I do want to know all the mechanical effects that my character would know, but I maintain, as does Kompera, that these rules are a representation of my characters knowledge and intuitive judgments, not just a method of resolving actions, and as such are integral to making decisions in character.

I can't get in character if I don't know what effects my character is feeling, and no DM can be as consistent, or as descriptive as is needed for one to fully understand everything their character does.

I don't want to have to ask my DM what penalty I take from the Wind, but I need to know what my character would, so I would prefer if the Gm used key words like strong/severe somewhere in his description so that I can know these things while breaking immersion as little as possible.

Akimbo
2008-08-27, 08:33 AM
You are assuming things. SwordGuy doesn't even play 2e (or AD&D) as far as I am aware. Last I heard he was playing 4e. Besides which you are ignoring the D20 folk he is likely referring to.

You are reading things into what he said.

Whether or not he plays 2e (and I have seen him post that he likes 2e more then 3e) has nothing to do with anything. His inherent supposition that he and others are "respected posters" and therefore, their opinions are more valid and valuable and I should listen and obey is just something that needs to be pointed out as what it is, an argument from authority that should be discarded.

And I am not reading anything into what he said, except exactly what he said, that I am not a real human being, and through various other posts, that I am not deserving of the respect he demands I have for him. That's fine. He can think those things. Especially since faced with someone who respects him as much as he respects his players he feels the need to ignore them because he cannot deal with suck disrespect.

Perhaps it would be better if he choose to show respect instead, but I would not try to force that on anyone.


No, he said looking them up in the DMG in the middle of the game is cheating. I don't pretend to know exactly what he means by that, but that is a far cry from "hide the rules from the players".

Preventing them from knowing the rules is exactly the same as hiding them.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 08:38 AM
Whether or not he plays 2e (and I have seen him post that he likes 2e more then 3e) has nothing to do with anything.

Well, except from the part where you assumed he did and that he thought it had some bearing on the level of respect he should be shown: "So you and some other people like 2e better then 3e, that doesn't make you very respected. Don't kid yourself."



His inherent supposition that he and others are "respected posters" and therefore, their opinions are more valid and valuable and I should listen and obey is just something that needs to be pointed out as what it is, an argument from authority that should be discarded.

I don't think that's what he was saying, but I do think you would do well to read the forum rules on double posting and such.



And I am not reading anything into what he said, except exactly what he said, that I am not a real human being, and through various other posts, that I am not deserving of the respect he demands I have for him. That's fine. He can think those things. Especially since faced with someone who respects him as much as he respects his players he feels the need to ignore them because he cannot deal with suck disrespect.

Context is everything. I highly doubt SwordGuy thinks that you personally are not a human being.



Perhaps it would be better if he choose to show respect instead, but I would not try to force that on anyone.

The moderators are quite strict here, and personal attacks are grounds for complaint. Just click the report post button.



Preventing them from knowing the rules is exactly the same as hiding them.
Preventing direct access to a rulebook is not the same thing as hiding the rules from the players. You are conflating these things.

nagora
2008-08-27, 08:38 AM
A player looking up the rules is cheating? Really?
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.

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.


Not to mention your several times stating that a good RPG has no rules (that matter).
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 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.


Whether or not he plays 2e (and I have seen him post that he likes 2e more then 3e) has nothing to do with anything.
Then why did you bring it up?

Person_Man
2008-08-27, 08:45 AM
Actually, since 1st ed all of my groups have had an understanding that only the DM is allowed to open the DMG, MM, or any other book that might contain a monster stat, traps, magic items, etc. Mostly its to prevent cheating during combat ("OK, this monster is vulnerable to acid.") But its had the nifty side effect of having all rules arguments settled by the DM. If its a particularly contentious point, we settle it over a couple of beers after the game. Seriously. Beer solves every argument over rules.

Charity
2008-08-27, 09:02 AM
Could well be, though I prefer to take a more charitable view.

Excellent, he's coming round...

^ we use red wine PM, but dats cos wez ardcore.
As it goes I get Ikkie (whom is a player in the game I run... badly) to look up rules in the DMG for me all the time, and even in the MM when the monster has some special ability that they couldn't be arsed to put in the stat block *shakes his fist at the bloke whom thought that was a good idea*
I trust him to play what his character knows... I have other players whom arn't so skilled at disassociating themselves from the character, and those I don't ask to help... we're all different, and I think I'll chuck my tuppence in with the rest of the 'each to their own' crowd.

Matt, go work *whipcrack*

Matthew
2008-08-27, 09:05 AM
Excellent, he's coming round...

^ we use red wine PM, but dats cos wez ardcore.

Matt, go work *whipcrack*

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me.

BizzaroStormy
2008-08-27, 09:07 AM
I would ask what business it was of his and conjecture that his mother was a prostitute. ... j/k

He knows I don't own a physical copy of the DMG so I doubt it would happen.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-27, 09:25 AM
Frankly, unless the player needs the PrC stuff (in which case, they should damn well Xerox it), they have no business having a DMG at the table, to say nothing of the MM. The only reason to have one is because you EXPECT to go head-to-head against the DM on a ruling, and want the text reference handy to show him up.

Must, again, disagree here. Details of Magic Items are in the DMG. Environmental factors are in the DMG. Typical break DC's of doors, walls, chests, etc. are in the DMG. A player can have perfectly good reasons for wanting access to this information at the table.

For example, I'm playing a game with a DM I know not to be the most rules savy and we have a relationship of trust at the table. I'm thinking, when my turn rolls around, to have my Barbarian smash down a door that some baddies have closed to split the party in half. As someone else is doing their round, I'll go look at the typical break DC's of a door like the DM described when he/she described the room and decide looking at that number if based on my characters past experience of kicking down doors, if he think he'd be able to do it. I decide that I think he can. When my turn comes around, I just announce I'm going to do it, rather than having to ask the DM a bunch of questions, have him look it up, and slow down combat. Chances are, knowing my DM as I do, he/she didn't consider this and mark the break DC of the door and rather than causing more delay by looking up the base DC (and then adding whatever hidden modifiers they want) I can point them to the page with the base DC's and they can do what they want from there.

The problem only comes in if I kick the door and fail because of the hidden modifiers. At that point I can argue with the DM about it (losing all the time I gained by looking it up ahead in the first place and generally be a jerk) or I can attribute it to whatever hidden modifiers he added and proceed from there, maybe asking if the door had any give to it or not. It's the behavior of the player that causes the problem, not the access to the books.

Also, in my view, asking a player to xerox stuff out of a book they own because you, as DM, are worried they might challenge your authority on the rules if they have greater access than just the xeroxed pages is both unreasonable and creates a default adversarial feeling at the table that is best avoided by simply trusting your players not to be jerks. In the case of the OP, it seems the players are jerks and that is the root problem.



If you're incapable of trust in the GM, then you shouldn't be playing. If the GM isn't worthy of your trust, then you shouldn't be playing with him. End of story.

I would say also though that if, as GM, you are incapable of trusting your players to have access to the rules and behave in a respectful and matrure manner (at least after a conversation about it) then you also shouldn't be playing, at least with them.


That's an inherently adversarial position, and, as an adherent to that, YOU, sir, would not be welcome at my table.

I know I'm not the one this was directed at, but what the heck, you and Matthew would still be welcome at my table if ever you were in NYC. Of course, I'm not sure I'd be willing to play 2e...


Yeah, but the question here is, if the players don't remember how much of a penalty is a severe wind, should the GM burrow them the DMG?

The player or the characters? If the players don't remember, but the characters would have a pretty good idea, I'd say lend them the book or look it up and give them the modifiers. Of course, you could just save time by letting them look it up themselves on someone elses round.


And if the party is preparing to face the BBEG, should the GM hand them over the character sheet stating all his strenghts and weakness for the party to abuse?

Not even close to the same thing. One is the general game mechanics and actions that the PC is aware of, generally, and used to taking. The other is specific information relating to a specific enemy that the PCs would have no mechanical knowledge of what-so-ever.



The GM can get the rules wrong, and it shouldn't be a big problem. The GM can yield a rules point that they got wrong, and it shouldn't be a problem, or they can change the rules to fit the ruling, and that shouldn't be a problem either. Unless the GM is changing the rules in a way not acceptable to the group, in which case them being able to call it out is a good thing.

Agreed. DM's screw up all the time. I do. I don't mind if a player points out something I had forgotten but they remembered. I don't mind if they looked it up in an unobtrusive way before pointing it out to show me the rule. I only mind if it gets in the way of the fun of the group and gameplay.


Of course, the GM is human after all. However, the place for it is NOT in session, where it bogs down play immeasurably.

I halfway agree with this. The DM should not allow rules discussion to bog gameplay. However, they should not totally and utterly disallow a disagreement about the rules to come up at all during play. So long as it's a quick, "actually, I think it's this ::shows page::" it doesn't really slow things down. Arguing about the rule is what causes the delay.


Personally, I value legitimate rules-lawyers at my table. Nobody's perfect, and being able to draw not only on my expertise but the expertise of everyone sitting at my gaming table is a resource, not a liability.

Now, if you've got a player who's using anal retentiveness and selective reading to twist the rules to his own advantage and then disrupting the game for everybody else through his behavior... well, that's a different problem. But it's not a problem that confiscating his rulebooks is going to solve.

On this pretty unusual occasion, I totally agree with Justin.


Seriously. Beer solves every argument over rules.

I want to play with you. :smallbiggrin:

hamlet
2008-08-27, 09:27 AM
I've always asked my players not to use anything other than the PHB and whatever relevant book they need for their prestige class. And even then I ask that they don't use them during actual game time. (I have breaks set up when we can deal with OOC concerns.) Otherwise my general rule is that if you are sitting at the table you are talking as your character unless you specificically look at me and say 'rules clarification please'. And even then I try to keep it as short as possible. I find the game keeps a much more immersive feel if the only thing on the table is the character sheet and some dice. Each time someone is flipping through their books they are being disrespectful to whomever else is doing something at the time, by ignoring them, or being dumb by ignoring me. As the DM everything I say has some import on the game, and you ignore it at your peril. That way I can get players to bring up major rules issues when everyone is not immersed in playing their character.

I don't think there is any need for anyone to ever be flipping through books during a game. All you have to do is know your own character's abilities. You don't have to know anything else that isn't relavant. So what the heck do you need the books for other than contradicting another player (something I will take care of) or contradicting me (which 99% of the time can wait for a little while until we break for OOC concerns.)

Quoted for Truth.

Charity
2008-08-27, 09:37 AM
I totally agree with Justin.




I want to play with you. :smallbiggrin:

You are making this too easy Bait...

Most grown up players are far more interested in having a good game than flipping through books, and with the complexity of some encounters it is often nice to have a few rules runners to look up stuff.

nagora
2008-08-27, 09:38 AM
Must, again, disagree here. Details of Magic Items are in the DMG. Environmental factors are in the DMG. Typical break DC's of doors, walls, chests, etc. are in the DMG. A player can have perfectly good reasons for wanting access to this information at the table.
I think you've missed the underlying thrust here: the issue is that if the player rolls to break in a door and the DM says "actually, to your surprise, the door resists" and the player then demands that the "typical" values printed in "the rules" be used and starts paging through the DMG to justify their claim that the DM is no playing fair, is the DM within their rights to say "put the book down; this door/chest/wind/curse/magic item is not the same as the one in the DMG"? And, for further bonus points, would you describe such a player as disruptive if they keep doing this?

Except for creation, I don't see any need for players to access magic item texts in the DMG, and even then I don't think player character mages should be duplicating items in the book anyway (just as a "have a bit more imagination" thing, not as an enforced rule).

A wand of lightning creates a bolt of lightning; how many dice damage is not something I think a DM should be obliged to reveal - although with experienced players it often is for practical reasons.

DrizztFan24
2008-08-27, 09:38 AM
You misunderstand. I'm not saying they can't read the stuff away from the table, I encourage it, to some degree, so they might know the rules and be enlightened. But at the table, the only purpose having the DMG readily-accessible has (PrCs aside) is to promote the OOC adversarial atmosphere that inevitably arises when every ad-hoc ruling the GM might make is picked apart by rules lawyers who refuse to accept that the GM's ruling is, during play, final. Because the ruling is final, there is no need for the players to have ready access to the book.

And promoting an OOC adversarial atmosphere between players and GMs is playing wrong. Yes, you can play wrong.

If you're incapable of trust in the GM, then you shouldn't be playing. If the GM isn't worthy of your trust, then you shouldn't be playing with him. End of story.

It seems to me, Swordguy, that you often quote that the players feel the NEED to catch the DM when he called a rule wrong; well if the players do then I pitty them, that tends to detract from the game experience. If your player does decide to challenge you on a rule, tell them that you decided to house-rule it. It may be that the player did not know that you understand the rules just fine and wanted to tweak it. Just explain the you understand X rule and are doing something different that is stated in the book. That should be fine to get the player to go back to his character sheet and put the DMG down. If not, then after the session explain that you run things different that WotC printed. If they do not like such play, then they may leave. That is my stance.

I am stating this from a player's perspective. It is nice to have the DMG at the table should it be needed, however cracking it open because your DM called a different ruling on something is kind of unsavory; and if you know the rules well enough that you realize the DM make a call different to the ones in the book then you can probably explain what you believed the ruels to be without having to open the book, then the paragraph above this comes into play. Having the MM however, and using it for malicious intent (looking baddies weakness's or stengths) is a slight (read big) no-no.

There are my views upon the subject. If I have been less that clear please state so in a civilized fashion and I will try to elucidate the subject in question:smallsmile:.

No offense is meant by this post, if any is taken then I fear that my words were mis-interpreted, again just ask for clarification and I will be happy to oblige. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:


Frankly, unless the player needs the PrC stuff (in which case, they should damn well Xerox it), they have no business having a DMG at the table, to say nothing of the MM. The only reason to have one is because you EXPECT to go head-to-head against the DM on a ruling, and want the text reference handy to show him up.

Is that honestly your opinion?:smalleek: The only reason to open the DMG is to show up the guy that took the hot seat for you? Was this written as an "if you bring the DMG for this purpose" scenario or for a "all players (but those "respected" authorities) do this" scenario? neither? I surely hope the former, for at that point I agree.

Tormsskull
2008-08-27, 09:54 AM
I think you've missed the underlying thrust here:

I think most have, though the thread has kind of sprouted tentacles. This was why I was fanatically using the word "context". It started with a specific situation, which some people interpretted generically to defend/reinforce their view point. Then others attacked the genericized viewpoint, which then gave wings to that argument.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 09:57 AM
I know I'm not the one this was directed at, but what the heck, you and Matthew would still be welcome at my table if ever you were in NYC. Of course, I'm not sure I'd be willing to play 2e...

I should probably be clear that I don't care whether players look through the DMG during play any more than through the PHB or browse the MM. There are situations where I would consider it impolite and not conducive to a good game, though (the context described in the original post, for instance).

Most folks are welcome to play at my table, though if I am running the game, then they shouldn't expect a "strong wind" to be -4 AB anymore than an "Orc" to have AC 13 and HP 5.

Back to work...

AKA_Bait
2008-08-27, 09:59 AM
I think you've missed the underlying thrust here:

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


the DM within their rights to say "put the book down; this door/chest/wind/curse/magic item is not the same as the one in the DMG"? And, for further bonus points, would you describe such a player as disruptive if they keep doing this?

Of course the DM is justified in doing so. The stats in the DMG are specifically for a typical door of that kind, not for all doors of that kind. The player is right in expecting one thing and having the character be surprised when it doesn't work as expected but yes, he is being disruptive (read: a jerk) if he stalls gameplay to argue with the DM about stuff like this all the time. However, we are discussing if players should have access to the book at the table. A player who is going to argue that the DM is being unfair needs no book to do so, and will just demand the DM look it up in the one the DM has in absense of their own copy. Jerks don't need props.


A wand of lightning creates a bolt of lightning; how many dice damage is not something I think a DM should be obliged to reveal - although with experienced players it often is for practical reasons.

The magic item access is not really just for any item. Yes, a wand of lighting bolt doesn't need to be looked up (except maybe for how many dice the player needs to roll as a practical matter), however, I have no idea what most of those levers do in the Apparatus of the Crab. If my PC is given one, I'm going to expect to be able to look it up during play rather than having to memorize it myself in real life (obviously, this is assuming that my PC has at some point tested out the levers).


I think most have, though the thread has kind of sprouted tentacles. This was why I was fanatically using the word "context". It started with a specific situation, which some people interpretted generically to defend/reinforce their view point. Then others attacked the genericized viewpoint, which then gave wings to that argument.

Welcome to the internet. :smallwink: The thread was about if the OP should demand his players books. It became a general argument about if players should, in principle, be allowed these books at the table. If the answer to the universal question is 'no, players should not be allowed the books', then the answer to the specific question about the OP's group is 'go ahead and demand them'. However, in the case that the answer is 'it's generally ok for players to have the books at the table' (my position) then the discussion goes back to the specific group the OP is talking about.

Since we don't know the group specifically, only some examples of them being argumentative, our discussion tends by necessity to the general. As for the specific, good advice has already been given, IMO: talk to the players about the rules-lawyering behaviour. Demanding the books might just cause more trouble than it's worth, depending upon how it is approached and the individual personalities of the players.

nagora
2008-08-27, 10:04 AM
I think most have, though the thread has kind of sprouted tentacles. This was why I was fanatically using the word "context". It started with a specific situation, which some people interpretted generically to defend/reinforce their view point. Then others attacked the genericized viewpoint, which then gave wings to that argument.
Yes. Perhaps we should refresh our collective memories at the situation in the OP:


Had a few more instances my last gaming session where I stated somethings (things I knew were not exactly as described in the DMG, which I tried strongly to hint at) and instantly the players (one in particular) immediately went to pull out their/his DMG to quote and argue with me.
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.

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.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-27, 10:11 AM
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.

Has anyone claimed that they do?


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.

And some of use have suggested that taking the book away wouldn't solve the problem and might very well make it worse both intrapersonally and practically. Openly discussing it with the player (again) after the sessions might do so. As for banning the player, it's not even a topic that has been broached by the OP here and we really don't know enough about the situation to give useful advice even if it had been. The OP was certianly not presenting this as a "should I take the books away or ban the player?" question.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 10:14 AM
And some of use have suggested that taking the book away wouldn't solve the problem and might very well make it worse both intrapersonally and practically. Openly discussing it with the player (again) after the sessions might do so. As for banning the player, it's not even a topic that has been broached by the OP here and we really don't know enough about the situation to give useful advice even if it had been. The OP was certianly not presenting this as a "should I take the books away or ban the player?" question.

There is the middle ground, though, where the DM asks for DMGs to be left at home, in bags or turned over. That leads directly to "why would they object?" The answer to that has been "They need the rules in the DMG." Whether that is true or not has become a focus of the discussion (I don't believe players need direct access to any rules in the DMG during play; others feel quite strongly that they certainly do).

AKA_Bait
2008-08-27, 10:20 AM
There is the middle ground, though, where the DM asks for DMGs to be left at home, in bags or turned over. That leads directly to "why would they object?" The answer to that has been "They need the rules in the DMG." Whether that is true or not has become a focus of the discussion (I don't believe players need direct access to any rules in the DMG during play).

Well, I don't think any players (including the DM) really need any of the books if they are familar enough with whatever ruleset they happen to be using. The heavier the ruleset everyone wants to use, the harder it becomes to play without access to the books. 3.x is pretty rules heavy.

I, and I think some others are saying, that depending upon your play style, that although you don't need the books, having them can be, and with mature players usually is, helpful. This is the reason why I would ask why the DM would want me to put the DMG away as a player even more than the practical concern of having my own book to look up things in when I want to. The objection is less about necessity of the book and more about the implication involved in asking for it to be left at home. Namley, that the player will misuse the book during play.

Of course, if the DM wants them away, and has some reasonable reason for it, the players should comply. Something as simple as "I know you aren't interrupting anyone, but I still can't help but find it distracting when you flip through the DMG at the table." is a perfectly acceptable justification in a mature group and doesn't imply anything about the player. "Because I can't trust you to have it and not argue with me all the time" is a whole different can of worms. The latter is the reason the OP wants the books. If he does ask for them, he might be better pretending it's the former. Either way, the DM is asking the player to do something, and should be willing to discuss the reason why. "Because I am the DM and I say so" is a lousy way to solve intrapersonal problems at the table 99% of the time.

Thrawn183
2008-08-27, 10:24 AM
I have a few questions that might help to redirect the conversation towards shedding some light.

How good of a swimmer is very good? Is it +5 to swimming? Is it +10?
How strong is a light current? How hard is it to swim in choppy water?
I had a level 1 character with a high strength score and max ranks in swimming have to get saved from drowning by the party because I didn't realize how tough it would be to swim in the water (and fight the shark in it but that's a different matter). The DM thought I was being the brave fighter taking one for the team. I thought my character could actually swim. Aparrently I was wrong. Though I figured that out pretty quickly once I started failing my swim checks.
To summarize: I acted out of character because I, the player, was not given the information needed to act in character by the DM. While my fighter would have sacrificed himself gladly for friends and family, he would not have done so for the relative strangers he was grouped with. Shouldn't this out of character action be discouraged by the DM?
---------
Ok, how about this from the DM's perspective? The hypothetical PC's are standing on wet rocky ground that slopes downward towards lava. I'm going to say that each PC gets a balance check each round to see if they can fight without falling and a Reflex save if they fall to avoid sliding into the lava. (Please ignore the presence of the presence of wet rocks around lava.) The rocks are "very slippery." What should the DC of the balance check be? What about the reflex save?

Now then, if you are one of the hypothetical PC's all you know about the terrain is what your DM tells you. The PC doesn't even actually know anything about the previous paragraph until his/her DM tells him/her. Is it going to be treated as difficult terrain that you can only move half speed through? Is it something where as long as you have 5 ranks in Balance you can move with ease? Is it harder to charge on these slippery rocks than it is to move normally?

The reason I bring this up: You have a fighter with max ranks in balance but a low Dex score. You also have a rogue with no ranks in balance but a high Dex score. The fighter will be good at balancing but is poor at making reflex saves. The rogue is bad at balancing (maybe, he still gets his Dex bonus and at the time of writing this I still don't know what bad at balancing actually means mechanically) and very good at reflex saves (for his level, very good at reflex saves could still mean a lot of things).

The PC's look at each other. They decide that only one person should cross with a rope to throw back to the others to make it easier to cross. Which one should cross? This is a very interesting decision for a character to make. Party loyalty, self-sacrifice etc. come into play. If the DM just says, "Bob the fighter is better at balancing, he should cross." you just lost out on all of that. There is, IMHO, no better way for a player to roleplay than having all the information available to him that would be available to his character.
-------
Ok, so hopefully I've made 2 points:
- The player needs information about the world to act in character and
- Because english is so messed up, I need the information in numerical terms. (My character isn't "good at swimming" he has a +5 or a +10 or a +15 or even a +30!)

So now we get to my final question: Should characters (not players, characters) know how good they are? Should a character know how far they can jump under normal circumstances? Should a character know how good they are under adverse circumstances? I mean, sure its possible my level 15 fighter has never faught outside of perfectly controlled conditions, it just doesn't seem probable. So finally, shouldn't a player be given the information that represent his characters ability (skill modifier) the difficulty of the task (normal DC) and known things to take into account such as jumping in to a strong wind (modifiers to the standard DC).

Heh, from now on I'm going to crack up whenever someone says there's a strong wind and they're going to think its for entirely the wrong reason.

Matthew
2008-08-27, 10:25 AM
Well, I don't think any players (including the DM) really need any of the books if they are familar enough with whatever ruleset they happen to be using. The heavier the ruleset everyone wants to use, the harder it becomes to play without access to the books. 3.x is pretty rules heavy.

Heh, heh. I think Gygax was well known for saying "the dirty little secret of all roleplaying games is that the rules are not necessary." Whether he was right or wrong about that, my meaning was that the DM can look up any rule in the DMG and relate it to the player if it becomes necessary to do so.



I, and I think some others are saying, that depending upon your play style, that although you don't need the books, having them can be, and with mature players usually is, helpful. This is the reason why I would ask why the DM would want me to put the DMG away as a player even more than the practical concern of having my own book to look up things in when I want to. Namley, that the player will misuse the book during play.

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.



Of course, if the DM wants them away, and has some reasonable reason for it, the players should comply. Something as simple as "I know you aren't interrupting anyone, but I still can't help but find it distracting when you flip through the DMG at the table." is a perfectly acceptable justification in a mature group and doesn't imply anything about the player. "Because I can't trust you to have it and not argue with me all the time" is a whole different can of worms. The latter is the reason the OP wants the books. If he does ask for them, he might be better pretending it's the former. Either way, the DM is asking the player to do something, and should be willing to discuss the reason why. "Because I am the DM and I say so" is a lousy way to solve intrapersonal problems at the table 99% of the time.

I agree.



Ok, so hopefully I've made 2 points:
- The player needs information about the world to act in character and
- Because english is so messed up, I need the information in numerical terms. (My character isn't "good at swimming" he has a +5 or a +10 or a +15 or even a +30!)

This is certainly the case that is being made. It just depends on your playstyle as to whether these things are necessary. I don't find English messed up, though I do find people are capable of using it badly (including myself).

nagora
2008-08-27, 10:28 AM
Has anyone claimed that they do?
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.


And some of use have suggested that taking the book away wouldn't solve the problem and might very well make it worse both intrapersonally and practically.
Possibly; probably even. There is a problem in the group and that's a fact.


Openly discussing it with the player (again) after the sessions might do so. As for banning the player, it's not even a topic that has been broached by the OP here and we really don't know enough about the situation to give useful advice even if it had been. The OP was certianly not presenting this as a "should I take the books away or ban the player?" question.
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?

hamlet
2008-08-27, 10:41 AM
Well, I don't think any players (including the DM) really need any of the books if they are familar enough with whatever ruleset they happen to be using. The heavier the ruleset everyone wants to use, the harder it becomes to play without access to the books. 3.x is pretty rules heavy.

I, and I think some others are saying, that depending upon your play style, that although you don't need the books, having them can be, and with mature players usually is, helpful. This is the reason why I would ask why the DM would want me to put the DMG away as a player even more than the practical concern of having my own book to look up things in when I want to. The objection is less about necessity of the book and more about the implication involved in asking for it to be left at home. Namley, that the player will misuse the book during play.

Of course, if the DM wants them away, and has some reasonable reason for it, the players should comply. Something as simple as "I know you aren't interrupting anyone, but I still can't help but find it distracting when you flip through the DMG at the table." is a perfectly acceptable justification in a mature group and doesn't imply anything about the player. "Because I can't trust you to have it and not argue with me all the time" is a whole different can of worms. The latter is the reason the OP wants the books. If he does ask for them, he might be better pretending it's the former. Either way, the DM is asking the player to do something, and should be willing to discuss the reason why. "Because I am the DM and I say so" is a lousy way to solve intrapersonal problems at the table 99% of the time.

And I, and I believe several others, are agreeing with that in principle.

HOWEVER.

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. This, of course, is not entirely true for third edition since, as has been repeated ad nauseum, many rules pertaining to the player characters are printed in the DMG.

Having a copy of the DMG and being familiar with its content is, for a player, a good thing in my estimation. It helps them to understand the entirety of the system that is being used and to gain perspective not only on their function within the game, but the DM's as well.

Using the DMG to verify or challenge DM rulings (as is the case in the original post) is not appropriate for many reasons, not least of which is because it completely undermines the DM's authority as the referee of the game and relegates him to the position of a rules reciter rather than a rules interpreter. In snarkier language, it basically turns D&D into HeroQuest.

Just to be perfectly clear: I am not now, nor ever saying that the players do not have the rights 1) to know what is in the DMG or 2) to challenge unfair or non-sensible rules interpretations by the DM. That is part of the game and, indeed, is part of the responsibility of being a player, but to do so respectfully (which is, apparantly, a lost art in the world today).

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.

I, when I DM and as a player often, extend this to the point where I find it helpful if players don't open the books during play since, invariably, it brings the game to a crashing halt and destroyes immersion.

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.

Charity
2008-08-27, 10:45 AM
Thrawn183 I have only skimmed your post, but I get the impression you believe your characters should always know the odds...
Why? Do you know with statistical certainty the chance you'll make a shot at basketball? Will that knowledge make any difference to whether you take the shot that the game presents you?
Your characters would not know the odds, now whether you should comes down to a play preference of yourself and the rest of the group. There is no right way to play.

Thrawn183
2008-08-27, 10:45 AM
As for breaking down a door. I would expect the DC to be what is posted in the DMG or within one or two. If my character failed to break down the door, I wouldn't complain about it. I would think... hmmm maybe they braced the door on the other side. Maybe its magically enchanted to resist being broken. Hmmm... maybe I should try fire, or even acid!

The point is that my character doesn't know the break DC of an abnormal door, but I do expect him to know the break DC of a normal one, at least if he's a character that likes to break down doors a lot. And in that case, I might expect him to have some idea what abnormal doors are like (but that's getting into experience with the abnormal which is pretty tough to rule on)

So yes, if you have a door that isn't a normal door, then the player has no right to cite you chapter and verse about what the DC should be. The conversation could be as short as:

"Shouldn't I have broken through that door?"
"You thought so, but clearly this door isn't quite what it seems."

This all comes back to trust however. The player has to trust the DM to not randomly change things, only when there is good reason to. That way the player knows what the character can normally do.

Edit: Charity, I might not know my chance of making a basketball shot, but a professional basketball player probably would. JJ, from Duke, could have easily told you how often he makes 3 pointers and free throws. More importantly, he can decide when someone is defending him heavily when its a better choice to pass rather than take the shot. What about a professional baseball player? Doesn't he know his batting average? Doesn't he know how much harder it is to hit a ball thrown at 100 mph rather than 85? Its what they do for a living.

The knowledge that we think of as "well.... I think it can do it," translates into a balance modifier and a DC. The numbers allow a player to roleplay courage or paranoias by deciding when the DC is too high or too low for the character to feel like making a that particular choice. The DM can say that you think you can do it, but then the DM has to know your modifier, the DC and exactly how you were planning to roleplay your character.

To be honest, this reminds me of something Dan Hemmens mentioned once. He didn't like when DM's described something as being frightening unless there was some kind of actual fear effect. He wanted to look at the description, slavering fangs and long pointy teeth and determine whether or not his character would actually be afraid. He was very strong in his belief that a DM shouldn't say that a zombie pops out and scares you. I want an accurate description of the difficulty of a task, so that I can decide how my character would act.

nagora
2008-08-27, 10:47 AM
I agree with Hamlet there.

To address Thrawn's post: I do think the DM should let newbies know what level of skill indicates a beginner, a competant and a heroic level person in their campaign, just as they should give them some idea of the power level (for example, I know a DM who only uses levels 1-5, where 5th level means that you're one of the Heroes of the Age - players need to know that). But that's about it.

If I tell you that the river is swollen and turbulent and your swimming skill is above what I told you represented Johnny Weissmuller, then you can decide based on that. But I'm not going to say "You think you have a 35% chance of drowning if you go in there".

Edit: I'll also not kill you on the first fail unless you're reckless, but that's another thread.

xelliea
2008-08-27, 10:48 AM
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.

i agree why did they have them during play

hamlet
2008-08-27, 11:02 AM
As for breaking down a door. I would expect the DC to be what is posted in the DMG or within one or two. If my character failed to break down the door, I wouldn't complain about it. I would think... hmmm maybe they braced the door on the other side. Maybe its magically enchanted to resist being broken. Hmmm... maybe I should try fire, or even acid!

The point is that my character doesn't know the break DC of an abnormal door, but I do expect him to know the break DC of a normal one, at least if he's a character that likes to break down doors a lot. And in that case, I might expect him to have some idea what abnormal doors are like (but that's getting into experience with the abnormal which is pretty tough to rule on)

So yes, if you have a door that isn't a normal door, then the player has no right to cite you chapter and verse about what the DC should be. The conversation could be as short as:

"Shouldn't I have broken through that door?"
"You thought so, but clearly this door isn't quite what it seems."

This all comes back to trust however. The player has to trust the DM to not randomly change things, only when there is good reason to. That way the player knows what the character can normally do.

And there lay the crux of the discussion.

You, as a player in that situation, assume immediately that there's something odd about the door. It's braced or it's unusual, or the "bad guy" is doing something funny with it from the other side that prevents you from bashing through it. NOBODY here is arguing that, based on your knowledge of standard DC's and your failure in this situation that you assume something fishy is up with the door in game.

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.

Swordguy
2008-08-27, 11:02 AM
Jesus...I go to sleep for a few hours and te thread asplodes...

Anyway, I more or less agree with hamlet, specifically this:



Just to be perfectly clear: I am not now, nor ever saying that the players do not have the rights 1) to know what is in the DMG or 2) to challenge unfair or non-sensible rules interpretations by the DM. That is part of the game and, indeed, is part of the responsibility of being a player, but to do so respectfully (which is, apparantly, a lost art in the world today).

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.

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.

As either Matthew or nagora said, it's a matter of playstyle. I'm there to tell a cooperative story between myself and my players. All parties know this up front while the game is still recruiting. Thus, stuff that turns the session into either a) a tactical wargame where exploiting loopholes in the rules is the key to victory, or b) arguments over rules while we could be playing, are verboten.

Oh, and for reference, I play 2e and 4e, though my 2e game is on hiatus right now - everyone involved is finishing summer stock theatre gigs. The reason I don't play 3e anymore is that it rewarded precisely the kind of play I described above that I dislike.