Game maker/homebrew theory: do you share your monster catalog?

[Buufreak]

Just a thought that occurred. I'm sure there is info that could be handy for this and that for the players, but obviously I don't want them meta gaming and seeing behind the curtain for every little thing.

What do you think?

[NichG]

I think my conclusion these days is I'd rather massively overshare setting details and actually rely on players to metagame in the sense of knowing what cool stuff there is out there that resonates with them and that they want to unearth, rather than worrying about needing to protect those secrets. But I also don't tend towards homebrewing large collections of stat blocks before I need them anyhow. It'd be more like sharing the explicit metaphysics of the setting or things like that...

I did run a campaign based on the Atelier series (sort of) where there was like a big list of creatures and their crafting ingredients and different cities and their specialties and PrCs/spells/etc you could only get there all in the player-facing materials, and that really helped players formulate long-term plans and initiate their own plotlines and things like that. Also I kind of like that its rewarding for a player to actually deep-dive into the materials and find something maybe I've totally forgotten that I wrote.

[Darth Credence]

I allow my players to access everything! I put a lot of work into creating all of that, so I want it read by people who will appreciate it.

To be fair, I make a lot of homebrew, so it's not like they can look at the list and memorize what might be coming. There are some simpler ones that I expect everyone who looks at my stuff will remember, and those are creatures that would be well known by people in the world. If a player really dug in and knows them all, well, they are the kid who really liked dinosaurs and can tell you everything about them.

I am not too worried about metagaming, although that could be the people I play with. I've never experienced problems because of it, so I tend to brush off the idea that it negatively affects games. That is completely on me and my games, though, not applicable to everyone.

[Vahnavoi]

Depends on game. Also depends on format of monster catalog.

One of my favorite monster catalogs is Fire On the Velvet Horizon. This is something I would gladly give to my players. It is written from "amnesiac omniscient" perspective, so it offers a lot of information of different monsters, including details that would be impossible for players to figure out on their own. But it's all in natural language, with no numerical mechanics in sight. So while it can be used to plan against monsters, that process can't be trivialized by fixating on hitpoints or armor class or what have you. It is also fully illustrated. Said illustrations are also crap on purpose. This means a player has (roughly) a scared loon's perspective of how the monsters look like, and they actually have to pay attention to figure out what they are encountering in the game.

But most of the time, I don't share - for the simple reason that it would be pointless. Players who come to my tables might have no prior experience of games, so even if I handed them a catalog, they would not know what would be relevant information, and it would be foolish to expect them to even read such a thing. It's more practical to assume ignorance on part of the players and if they do happen to know something, well, good for them. I can then gradually give them snippets of information and reveal more based on what they show interest in.

Another reason I don't share is that a lot of monsters I use are randomly generated. Like, even I don't know what exactly my players will meet in a given session. People who play the same systems can easily deduce what rules are in play and get access to them, but I find this less frequent than people learning to count cards in Blackjack.

[skyth]

I'll share the stat blocks of my critters or even bosses with my players after they've encountered them. More the bosses than anything, especially ones with weird abilities that they figure out during the fight. They enjoyed checking out the stat sheet I did for it after the fight.

[Mastikator]

I'll share the stat blocks of my critters or even bosses with my players after they've encountered them. More the bosses than anything, especially ones with weird abilities that they figure out during the fight. They enjoyed checking out the stat sheet I did for it after the fight.

Basically this. If they ask.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm showing too much of what's going on behind the curtain, I'm often too excited to not share but I'm getting better at it. Generally I think the game is better if the players find out, but especially if they find out because they investigated. They don't always investigate. Sometimes they don't investigate because they're feeling the pressure I put on them, sometimes they don't care. For the former I wish I knew how to better exposition them.

[Aditi5897]

Basically this. If they ask.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm showing too much of what's going on behind the curtain, I'm often too excited to not share but I'm getting better at it. Generally I think the game is better if the players find out, but especially if they find out because they investigated. They don't always investigate. Sometimes they don't investigate because they're feeling the pressure I put on them, sometimes they don't care. For the former I wish I knew how to better exposition them.

It's a delicate balance, isn't it? Sharing just enough to enrich the experience without spoiling the magic. Players finding out through their own curiosity adds depth to the narrative, but when they're feeling pressured or disinterested, it becomes a challenge. Perhaps guiding them subtly through NPCs or environmental cues could help. Remember, the joy lies in discovery, so fostering that sense of exploration can lead to more fulfilling gameplay. Keep refining your storytelling techniques, and trust in the journey of discovery your players embark on.

[Witty Username]

My only strong opinion is I have no issues with players looking over anything they want when it is not during the game session proper.
My regular group has three rotating DMs, so we gotta have availability to the MM for sanity.
Also, players should feel comfortable familiarizing themselves with DM material. Since it helps with understanding the process and can help offload some from the DM, let's them get comfortable with DMing themselves if their interests, and helps making decisions as a player.

Also, the MM is the beginning of understanding, not the end of it. Homebrew and modification should be done as a DM gets more comfortable with the system.

[JusticeZero]

For monsters that are a known threat in the area? Metagaming is completely logical and in character.
"Gara's Marsh has an infestation of undead, a tag team of a fast skeleton, their skeletonless skin and flesh, and a ghost. The skeletons have high move speed, resist piercing damage, but take extra from bludgeoning damage; the skin likes to do grappling attacks, resists bludgeoning, and takes bonus damage from slashing; the ghosts are ethereal and do cold damage. So the weapon shop recommends you carry a slashing weapon, a bludgeoning weapon, and something that can ghost touch. Don't worry about level drain, they don't do it. This is all well known in character."

[Pauly]

Well known and Common threats. The players absolutely get the stat block.

Uncommon or poorly understood threats. The players get a vague verbal description. The description is accurate but incomplete.

Rare or mythical threats. The players get to work it out for themselves, with a few hints from the GM.

[gbaji]

Well known and Common threats. The players absolutely get the stat block.

Uncommon or poorly understood threats. The players get a vague verbal description. The description is accurate but incomplete.

Rare or mythical threats. The players get to work it out for themselves, with a few hints from the GM.

Pretty much this. I'll generally tell the players the salient details about any monsters they encounter if these are monsters they would reasonably know something about ahead of time. More rare things will require some sort of lore skill check. Obviously, super rare and/or unique creatures aren't things they'd know about (and the players don't know what they have cause that generally means I made them up, or heavily modified somehing that already exists).

Player knowledge can intrude on this, but it's usually not a huge problem. Half the time my players have forgotten the special abilities of whatever specific creature I'm hitting them with anyway, and I'm the one correcting them with "well, actually, your characters are from this area, and know that this creature has..." type stuff all the time. Most of my players are reasonably good at roleplaying their characters as though they don't know something even if the player does though, so that's a bonus. In fact, they often have a lot of fun playing out their character's making "rookie mistakes" when fighting rare creatures. It's not uncommon at all for one of my players to say something like "Well. My character doesn't know that firing arrows at the zombies will be mostly ineffective, so he'll do it anyway", often followed by "hey. My arrow sunk right into the zombie, I must be doing great!". Eventually they'll figure out that the forest of arrows sticking out of the zombie don't seem to be slowing it down at all, and move to another tactic, and they'll usually play that out for fun.

So yeah. I usually don't have much of an issue with the players having a decent knowledge of the creatures present in the game. I don't let them look up stat data during play though, but honestly I don't recall any of my players ever trying to do this in the first place. I just think that if you have enough communication in-game, the players feel they have sufficient information to proceed, and everything works out fine.

[Aditi5897]

Hi Guys,
Would you be willing to share your monster catalog with other game makers or homebrew enthusiasts for inspiration and collaboration?

[Buufreak]

Hi Guys,
Would you be willing to share your monster catalog with other game makers or homebrew enthusiasts for inspiration and collaboration?

All my homebrew is readily available in my sig.

Edit: most of my players aren't aware of that fact. The others are too lazy to follow a 5 step paper trail.

[Jay R]

From my “Rules for DMs” document:

13. There must be enough rules consistency, and world consistency, that the players know what they can count on.

a. They should also know what they cannot count on. It’s OK for your goblins to be different from the goblins in the rules. It’s OK for them to not know what goblins are like. But it’s not OK for them to believe that goblins will be rules-goblins.

14. When you change rules, you don’t necessarily have to tell the players the new rules, if it is something that their characters wouldn’t know. But you should tell them not to assume all D&D rules apply.

a. If you changed dragons because most people in that world don’t know details about dragons, you don’t have to tell them those details. But you should tell them that dragons aren’t color-coded for their benefit.
b. Not knowing about the monster is a challenging adventure of discovery. Knowing things that are false is just a failure mode. No resemblance.
c. Changing rules has consequences elsewhere. Think them through in advance. If dragons aren’t color-coded, what does Tiamat look like?

I don’t tell them what the new monsters are like, but I certainly tell them, before the game starts, that some monsters are not from the books. From the Introduction to my current game (which players had before designing characters):

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.

1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. No sentient race has only one alignment; free will is not a human-only trait. The alignment given in the books will be the most common for that race near where you are, but the presence of Neutral Evil goblins near your village does not mean that there aren’t perfectly Lawful goblin farm communities far to the south, or an advanced city of Good goblins on another continent. Most specifically, babies aren’t Evil, regardless of race.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it. I won’t change most Undead; knowledge has value. But I reserve the right to include a few surprises.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk unless you make a Knowledge roll or otherwise learn what they are.

After each session, I write it up and send them the description. After the players encounter them the first time, I usually tell the players about them, including the fun unique things. When they encounter them again, they should have figured out more about what they can do.