Quote from: Benoist;725025Well I don't believe separating Players and GM/DM material stops people from min-maxing or reading the parts which are theoretically off limits for them - if that were true, since Prestige Classes were included in 3rd edition's DMG along with specific guidelines advising the DM to implement them carefully and organically into one's own campaign, you wouldn't have seen them become a corner stone of 3E's CharOp culture.

Nah. The main advantage I see in separating Players and GM's materials is to help the reader determine what needs to be grasped, or explained at some point or other of game play, while either playing the game, or running the game. That basically helps in not frontloading all sorts of needless information on the average player's book, not having to get to the game or pitch the game with newbies with a 500 page hardback which totally may scare some people off, and so on.

In AD&D 1e's case there's clearly an intent that you learn while playing, and then you play up to the point you feel comfortable crossing into the other side to create/run your own campaign milieu. The PH is structured in such a way as to provide you reference material to help you create a character and manage those resources which might need clarifications and quantification in terms of rules - like spells, say, or weapons and armor. The actual process of playing is something that you learn as you do, with the DM having the reference charts and all the finer points approached in a similar manner in his own tome, plus all sorts of tools and options and discussion of various topics helping him/her create the milieu and run it effectively. So in effect, you can sit down at an AD&D table and begin with a character level 1-4 and roll the dice right out of the gate.

I agree. I never, as a player, stopped reading at the GM section and found the warnings kind of ridiculous. But as a marker of how much a player needs to know to make a character and get started its fine.

I would generally abstain from reading any adventures provided in a core book unless I planned to run them, however.

Quote from: ggroy;725022I once played in a game where the other players were adamant about seeing all the DM's notes in advance.  (It was an group of mostly inexperienced players).

The final agreement with the DM for the game to go forward, was that just about everything in the game would be generated from random tables that the players knew the contents of.  (From the DMG).

In that case I would hand the DMG to the players and tell them to knock themselves out and have fun. I GM to run my game not function as gameserver.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;725036In that case I would hand the DMG to the players and tell them to knock themselves out and have fun. I GM to run my game not function as gameserver.

The first DM walked away, when nobody could come to an agreement.

Then one of the inexperienced players decided to DM.  It was easier to come to an agreement with this second DM.  In spite of this person's inexperience with rpg games, they knew very well that only way things could work with this particular group was to generate almost everything randomly (from DMG tables).

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;725021It can be argued that some of those GM only sections are the similar to the text and maps from TSR dungeon modules - stuff that the players/characters are about to explore and unveil.

I know that I don't show my players my GM prep in advance.

Some of them may be, but I'm only talking about my games here. There is nothing in any of my games intended for the GM only. This includes sample scenarios, as I write these scenarios/adventures with a lot of open content and random determination - and they are designed to help a GM structure their own scenarios rather than as a by-the-book adventure. I do have one game that is sold in a special edition for developers - for a buck more than the standard edition - and it has a developer's section in it, but if non-developers read it, there would be nothing there to spoil the game for them.

-clash

Quote from: ggroy;725037The first DM walked away, when nobody could come to an agreement.

Then one of the inexperienced players decided to DM.  It was easier to come to an agreement with this second DM.  In spite of this person's inexperience with rpg games, they knew very well that only way things could work with this particular group was to generate almost everything randomly (from DMG tables).

I am utterly befuddled by such bizarre group dynamics.

If I were to join a group that inisted on playing only if the campaign had the personality of a wet noodle then I wouldn't last one session. Life is too short.

If this is your gaming group, man I'm sorry.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;725044If this is your gaming group, man I'm sorry.

This was a group from many years ago.  It was from answering an ad at a gaming store.

This particular game didn't last long.  It collapsed after about two months of weekly sessions.

Quote from: ggroy;725022I once played in a game where the other players were adamant about seeing all the DM's notes in advance.  (It was an group of mostly inexperienced players).

The final agreement with the DM for the game to go forward, was that just about everything in the game would be generated from random tables that the players knew the contents of.  (From the DMG).

Are trust issues a hallmark of the new generation of roleplayers, or did I just not notice it before? It seems to be getting exceedingly common.

Quote from: TristramEvans;725049Are trust issues a hallmark of the new generation of roleplayers, or did I just not notice it before? It seems to be getting exceedingly common.

I don't know what brought this on. Perhaps people just forgot that they can walk away from a bad game?

Quote from: TristramEvans;725049Are trust issues a hallmark of the new generation of roleplayers, or did I just not notice it before? It seems to be getting exceedingly common.

Good question.

I only started coming across these sorts of "trust" issues, when I came back to tabletop rpg games shortly after 3.5E was released.

Back in the day before the 1990's, I never really came across such issues.

Quote from: TristramEvans;725049Are trust issues a hallmark of the new generation of roleplayers, or did I just not notice it before? It seems to be getting exceedingly common.

It's exceedingly reported on gaming forums, whereas those people who keep playing with no particular issue don't generally run to their keyboards to complain they had a good game.

That said, it is a meme that has been getting some traction to the point game designers took notice and tried to fix issues which are in fact felt by a vocal minority, thus applying the wrong remedy to a set of issues which are by and large related to people, not game systems. That's the worrisome part, but I think, from looking at recent games with some profile among gamers like Numenera, to the appeal of the "old school" types of games in some quarters, and even while looking at Next in some respects, that we are finally getting out of that downward spiral of suck. I hope so, in any case.

Well, I think mentioning Paranoia is a bit of a bad example on this, as the whole idea that players would inevitably read it was part of the joke.

I will say the only "GM Only" parts of books that I really care about is if its a setting + rules book, and some of the setting information is in the gm only section. Such as Sundered Skies having the explanation of the origins of the voidglow in the GM section, which is something the PCs wouldn't know.

Having RULES in the GM only section is something I like less, unless those rules would be something the player shouldn't be able to anticipate. Like I could see a Call of Cthulhu style game with insanity rules that were in a GM only section.

Quote from: Benoist;725025Nah. The main advantage I see in separating Players and GM's materials is to help the reader determine what needs to be grasped, or explained at some point or other of game play, while either playing the game, or running the game. That basically helps in not frontloading all sorts of needless information on the average player's book, not having to get to the game or pitch the game with newbies with a 500 page hardback which totally may scare some people off, and so on.

This is a good point. The new Doctor Who RPG (well, I guess it isn't really new anymore) has a player book and DM book and the GM contains all the information from the player book I believe, but it also has more material that only the GM needs to worry about. It isn't so much about keeping that stuff from the players as not burdening them with it when they make characters. It also was functional because I had a book for myself that had everything in it I needed, and the players had their own book (no need for two PHBs).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;725063This is a good point. The new Doctor Who RPG (well, I guess it isn't really new anymore) has a player book and DM book and the GM contains all the information from the player book I believe, but it also has more material that only the GM needs to worry about. It isn't so much about keeping that stuff from the players as not burdening them with it when they make characters. It also was functional because I had a book for myself that had everything in it I needed, and the players had their own book (no need for two PHBs).

The format of the new Dr. Who RPG os ideal to me. Not the least be ause its a boxed set. Funny how that makes it seem like so much more, even if the page count is drastically less. More boxed sets that arent crippleware! Thats what I want.

A book shouldn't have a GM only section.

Players should skip the setting information and antagonist stats (or read them, but ignore the contents while IC) out of minimal human courtesy and gamesmanship.

And everyone should know the rules.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;725063This is a good point. The new Doctor Who RPG (well, I guess it isn't really new anymore) has a player book and DM book and the GM contains all the information from the player book I believe, but it also has more material that only the GM needs to worry about. It isn't so much about keeping that stuff from the players as not burdening them with it when they make characters. It also was functional because I had a book for myself that had everything in it I needed, and the players had their own book (no need for two PHBs).

I would consider a GM section to ideally deal with advice on running games more than rules. Optional rules and in-depth rule discussions, along with randomizing charts seem fair game though. I dont think its necessary for players to know all the rules, at least not with the suggestion that the GM needs to follow those and be held accountable for them.