Some RPGs (Paranoia and Kult for example) specifically have parts of the game that are "Off Limits" to players. Some of this is baked right in with separate Players and GMs handbooks (D&D).

Whilst there is some value in splitting larger game books up like this; games are easier to digest, an aspects of the game are easier to monetise, backstory and secrets are hidden. Is there much other benefit from saying "NO" to parts of a game?

It stops people exploiting the system. True to a certain extent. But at the same time it limits how a system can be engaged with. Those players can only do so via their GMs, who may have a specific agenda.

It helps reinforce a GMs interpretation. But what if the GM is wrong?! BadWrongFun alert. And doesn't it push a lot of the gaming weight onto one side of the player/GM split? Sometimes it is nice to have others who know those bits of the rules "you haven't read yet"...

My point: Stopping players from reading parts of the game? Some designers think it's fine. Do you dig it in the same way they do, or ignore them? How does this fit in with your gaming and take on things?

Personally, when I run a game like D&D, I know there are other GMs sitting there and we accept that and go with the current GMs "vision". I've played with people who don't like that and think that reinterpreting something for a specific game is a no-go affair.

(Knowing a system can get in the way though. I tried using the WoD Storytelling mechanics for Kult. We had one player who was a die-hard WoD fan. He had a hard time disengaging what he knew of one game world so he could play in another. Assumptions he had did not gel with what was going on "on the night" as it were. But that is a different issue, kind of. Maybe they are linked. Everyone was told "It is NOT WoD, it's just the dice mechanic". But even that is hard to get away from.)

I like separate GM sections and really like separate GM physical books when they are actually sold separately. This allows players to purchase just what they need to play without paying for material they may never use.

As far as players reading GM material, I just assume that players have read all published material for a game as far as campaign planning goes. No big deal.

In practice, there isn't much anybody can do about players reading DM specific books.

When I was previously DM'ing, I just assumed one or more of the players had read (or attempted to memorize) the DM specific books.

I think a lot hinges on the premise of the campaign you want to have with that game.

Games like Heaven and Earth or Aletheia, for instance, are so tied in to a particular set of secrets that it can genuinely ruin the campaign if the players read ahead. (Abstract Nova seem to have a knack for putting out games which are basically tied very, very closely to one particular campaign premise like that.) Conversely, there's lots of games where the premise and secrets of a particular campaign are in no way implicit in the core rulebook(s) - that's true of D&D, that's true of the core World of Darkness rulebooks, that's true of a whole swathe of games.

My rule of thumb is that I'm generally disinterested in policing what my players read so I'm laid back about it. I'd prefer players didn't read a published adventure I was running, and if a campaign really hinged on the players discovering the secrets of the setting as they go I would ask them not to read the core book, but those are the only exceptions.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;724980It stops people exploiting the system. True to a certain extent. But at the same time it limits how a system can be engaged with. Those players can only do so via their GMs, who may have a specific agenda.

For me this isn't a concern. For some games it enhances my experience if there is GM only material, but not for all.

QuoteIt helps reinforce a GMs interpretation. But what if the GM is wrong?! BadWrongFun alert. And doesn't it push a lot of the gaming weight onto one side of the player/GM split? Sometimes it is nice to have others who know those bits of the rules "you haven't read yet"...

Again, i think it comes down to the game. For 3E using a typical D&D setting, i think the game works better when most players know the majority of rules. But for a game of ravenloft the more players know about the setting, the powers checks mechanics, etc the more the game loses its edge (and eventually this does occur even if players are not reading the material, but those first sessions where its all new, are thrilling).

QuoteMy point: Stopping players from reading parts of the game? Some designers think it's fine. Do you dig it in the same way they do, or ignore them? How does this fit in with your gaming and take on things?

Well, they are not physically stopping you. It is a suggestion intended to improve your own enjoyment. You can always ignore it (and many players do). My experience though is when I have read these sections as a player, it often diminished my experience with the game. I feel it is fair to have GM only material in a book. It isn't always needed though.

There are no GM only sections in my games.

-clash

Plus, sometimes GMs tire of being GMs and want to be players and vice versa. The whole idea of separate GM and player knowledge was unworkable as soon as the game was put to print.

Quote from: zend0g;725005Plus, sometimes GMs tire of being GMs and want to be players and vice versa. The whole idea of separate GM and player knowledge was unworkable as soon as the game was put to print.

That too. The more you keep the players ignorant, the more difficult you make it for them to occasionally GM a game for you. It's self-defeating.

Only time sections of a game should be GM eyes-only are
1 - if the players read about it, it will spoil the "surprise" (modules, metaplot)
2 - those acres of turgid how-to-GM essays (because they'll put the players off)

I don't buy games for metaplot, and I don't need to be told how to GM, so I don't value GM-only sections. Also #1 often goes against the games' USP. You probably shouldn't read the Keeper only sections in Call of Cthulhu, but... you know it's all about Cthulhu, right?

Turn the question around, which parts of the game should be "player-only", i.e. an introduction to get new players up and running quickly? Getting players au fait with the rules is a priority for me.

GM only section of rules? No way.

Quote from: flyingmice;725003There are no GM only sections in my games.

It 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.

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.

I 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).

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;724980It helps reinforce a GMs interpretation. But what if the GM is wrong?!

I don't run "a" game.  I run my game.  I'm certainly willing to hear players speculate on elements I haven't fleshed out or thought too deeply about yet, but my interpretation is the only one that counts.  Were I to run a published setting, I would warrant the accuracy of nothing from the setting material, except that which was common knowledge to one or more of the characters.  Running 30s pulp, say, Adolf Hitler is still in charge of Germany unless I specify otherwise ... but as to whether the White Cossack is the front man for the Ubey Yego cult, as the adventure book might attest, that goes according to my whim.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;724980Some RPGs (Paranoia and Kult for example) specifically have parts of the game that are "Off Limits" to players. Some of this is baked right in with separate Players and GMs handbooks (D&D).

Whilst there is some value in splitting larger game books up like this; games are easier to digest, an aspects of the game are easier to monetise, backstory and secrets are hidden. Is there much other benefit from saying "NO" to parts of a game?

Well 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.

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.

That's a way to look at it, yes. When you start playing the game without an expectation of having grasped a whole lot of information that really is relevant to the processes of adjudication rather than the act of play itself, you can actually concentrate on the action of the game rather than worry about all sorts of meta-game issues. It helps some people (a majority of people I've personally introduced to the game, point of fact) feed on the sense of wonder and discovery of the game, learning bit by bit, from the game world's standpoint, what makes it tic, including its rules, up to the point they reach mid levels and basically have a much better grasp of what it is they are doing and how, not only in terms of rules mind you, but in terms of tactics, of managing resources and the environment, and so on, so forth. This is beyond this point that these players might actually consider getting into the DMG to, in the end, run their own proper games and campaign milieu.