No matter how many times I crack open Gary Gygax's Dungeon Masters Guide, I come across something I don't remember ever having read before. That's probably not literally true, but the book is so large and anarchic in its organization that it's very easy to overlook (or forget) bits of its text. Sometimes, the text in question is insignificant; other times, it's actually vital to understanding some aspect of AD&D's rules. More often, the text is simply amusing and/or provides insight into the mind of Gygax himself.
And then there are the head scratchers – passages or paragraphs that leave one wondering whether or not to take them seriously. I found one of these the other day as I was seeking out something else entirely from the DMG. In the book's preface, shortly before the credits and acknowledgments section, Gygax offers the following warning:
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of an honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that would otherwise arise from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting "sages" and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge that could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment – insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.
I'm genuinely torn between thinking the whole paragraph in jest and thinking that Gygax was being completely serious. Like the Dungeon Masters Guide itself, the paragraph contains both genuine wisdom and absurd bluster. In my youth, I don't think I knew a player of AD&D who didn't own the DMG, it being seen as part of the essential "three-book set" one needed in order to participate in the game. If Gygax were serious in his admonition, very few people heeded him (and, to be honest, I can't imagine that TSR would have wanted to discourage anyone from buying the biggest – and most expensive – of the AD&D hardbacks).
And yet, for all that, there is a kernel of truth in what Gygax wrote. Not knowing is an important part of the fun in almost any RPG campaign; I can remember many occasions when the players' puzzling out something previously unknown to them was the source of much excitement. (Mind you, I feel the referee is a player too and some things should remain unknown even to him.) Secrets, hidden knowledge, and the thrill of discovery are all vital tools in a good referee's repertoire and Gygax is quite right to caution against allowing players to know too much, lest it lessen their own enjoyment. But the "solutions" he advocates, I hope humorously, are small-minded and vindictive. Far from achieving the laudable goal of preserving campaign mysteries, they would, if implemented, only convince players that their referee is petty martinet. I am certain that was not Gygax's intention, but, as with many passages in the Dungeon Masters Guide, who can say?
I am reminded of the rule in the first edition of Feng Shui, which gives monsters and NPCs bonuses against any player that has read the bestiary section of the rulebook and tries to exploit that knowledge in game.
ReplyDeleteAs a young player, possession of any material meant for GMs only was indeed frowned upon. Now, no one cares anymore ;-)
ReplyDeleteAs for the passage you quote: it hovers somewhere between mixing in-game rules and out-of-game social contract rules. I've seen some things like that before in early rpg publications, e.g. using some high-level monsters to punish players (not characters). I think it also shows the role of GM vs players was not fully crystalized yet. So perhaps the above is not entirely in jest ;-)
There's a section in Jon Peterson's new book on the idea in early D&D (And variants) about players not knowing the rules, or rather how some DMs thought the players shouldn't know the rules.
ReplyDeleteMy copy has not yet arrived, but I am now even more intrigued by it.
DeleteAgreed, DerikB---that's the light that I read this passage within.
DeleteAllan.
I actually wish more games had a player's guide separate from the referee's guide. For Mork Borg, I made my own by going into the PDF and deleting the inside front cover spread, monster stats, arcane catastrophe table, and the dungeon. My player's don't need that stuff and it's more fun if they're surprised.
ReplyDeleteMetamorphosis Alpha is a great example of a game that involves the fun of not knowing. I won’t explain how it does so, lest I ruin someone’s enjoyment of the game, but if it’s played as intended, there’s a point of major surprising revelation that will stick with players forever.
ReplyDeleteI would say the admonishment goes double for players and the Monster Manual. All they should have is the Player's Handbook!
ReplyDeleteI have been playing D&D with my kids now for about 6 years, and we have pretty much stuck to this PHB-only tenet. Works wonderfully!
When I was a player, in another DM's world (late 70's), it was quite enthralling that he was essentially running his own heavily-modified OD&D---so that even owning all three AD&D was no great insight to me as a player. Knowing the mechanics, beyond what you need for intelligent play, only lessens the playing experience IMO --- pulling back the curtain kills immersion. Things seem more complex when you don't know all the details. That's why we sometimes miss the naive magic of our childhood. That's also why I also think inventing non-standard magic items and creatures is so strongly encouraged (post-OSR) --- it restores the wonder to the exotic.
But man, James, this latest set of posts --- have you got an axe to grind against AD&D? Whew!
I am undergoing the opposite transformation. Despite *thinking* I was paying AD&D (i.e. levels above 3rd! more spells!), I have come to realize that I'd always been playing OD&D.
Many years older now, (and as a DM) I have started with Sowrds & Wizardry (OD&D) but feel myself strongly drawn to AD&D---slowly moving my game in that direction. While to me it maybe not the most INSTA-FUN for new players, or a casual game-night---and also can certainly be fiddly and difficult for a new DM---I feel it is the most complete version of the game ever produced. It assumes an you are planning to play an extended campaign. B/X was a recanting---a back-tracking away from "advance" because...well...the target audience became *kids*. It feels "marketed". AD&D always felt (and still does) like peeking at what the adults were doing.
And yes, I know its debatable history (even as to whether or not Gygax even played it himself), but Huso and others are right: the system WORKS...and it was clearly design with a massive amount of thought and play-testing to be something that addressed/fixed many of the issues of OD&D. Like you, I am constant discovering a new nugget of practical wisdom in the 1e DMG. Strictly speaking, AD&D was not first edition, it was first REVISION...and I think it's an enigmatic masterpiece worthy of the effort to understand. It the high-water mark: the place to turn, when you have no other place to turn.
Sorry...I rant! :)
In my old 80s group about half the players had no interest in ever DMing and I don't think they ever owned copies of the DMG. Certainly players were never allowed to reference it at the table, or to argue DM rulings and judgment calls based on DMG-only info. Sometimes players would research stuff between sessions (especially how various magic items they had found worked) even though I told them not to, so I reserved the right to switch things around from what was in the books to foil them, which they then complained about, but I told them they'd done it to themselves. IMO the game is better when the players are in the dark about the DM side of the table - it makes it easier to think about things from an in-world perspective rather than focusing on the meta-level of rules and math.
ReplyDeleteThat said, even at age 10 we recognized the ridiculousness of literally punishing characters in-game because the players had peeked inside the Forbidden Tome.
I've always thought Gygax was pretty clearly playing thus for humour -- the *player,* not the character, is "less than worthy of an honorable death?" That's so far over the top that I can't imagine thinking it was said straight-facedly.
ReplyDeleteThe core concept here, though, is nothing especially outré. The notion is really just an early version of keeping "player knowledge" and "character knowledge" separate, though one focused more on keeping the knowledge away from the players rather than trusting them not to use it.
I just want to add that I get a LOT more fun out of a game when I have no idea what I am doing. ESO, WFRP 1e, TMNT, all were better before I got "knowledge"
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that players should not know too much, keeping information from them can be taken to extremes. I played for a while with someone who seriously believed that players should not know how many hit points they had, how much damage they had taken, or how much damage they had done to monsters. This made for an almost paranoid style of play.
ReplyDeleteSounds like way too much work for the GM as well!
DeleteDoes sounds fun tho! I would be in!
DeleteI DMed a few games like this, and it certainly does make extra work for the DM - not just in record-keeping but in the levels of description required to give the players an accurate view of what was going on. The main effect on the game was a huge increase in caution from the players: there was much less enthusiasm about jumping into the fray. Ultimately it wasn't something I stuck with - gung ho PCs are part of what makes D&D enjoyable for me - but it was an interesting experiment.
DeleteI see only intentional pomposity for humorous effect.
ReplyDeleteLong-time DMs seem to make the best players. That isn't to say that there aren't excellent players who've never cared about the guts of the systems. However, as two separate pop pools, games I've ran with crack DMs-as-players just fly.
Wonder is great. Discovery is amazing. The endorphin rush is never duplicated. You never forget your first kiss. But it is fleeting.
The endorphin rush of applied mastery is durable, and allows the wonder to shift squarely on to the creative appreciation of the scenario, instead of what will happen if your character does X. I very much enjoy DMing new players, but only as the first part of a progression.
In OD&D the characters were not even allowed to roll their own hit dice, let alone read anything.
ReplyDeleteI must have missed this section of the rules. Where does it say that?
DeleteOne of the interesting ideas here is that there is the clear distinction between someone who is a GM and someone who is a player. While there are players that never run a game, it's very rare to find GMs who never play.
ReplyDeleteI prefer running games to playing, but at the same time, I find playing in other people's games keeps my GM skills sharper. Not only can I learn things from other people running games, it is helpful to me to stay attached to the perspective of a player. Having that perspective helps me keep in mind what makes the game fun for players.
Discouraging potential customers from buying one of your products (copies of the DMG) is also a bit remarkable, from a business standpoint!
ReplyDeleteIsn't it possible that was a bluff? Like the first rule of Fight Club - don't talk about Fight Club, ensuring that word spreads and more people join.
DeleteAha, cunning indeed.
ReplyDeleteI always find your blogs interesting. I literally just thought about this passage in the DMG this week. I have found over the years certain things rpg related in the past will just pop into my mind and I will come to your blog and you actually review that very thing. Excellent work as always.
ReplyDelete