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.
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.
Quote from: The Butcher;725070A 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.
I really don't see the harm in actually having sections clearly showing "information for the players" and "information for the GM".
So "shouldn't," really? Why not?
Quote from: The Butcher;725070And everyone should know the rules.
You mean before the start of play? I don't want to have to require that from anyone. It'd be like insisting everyone should read the entire booklet of RISK before playing the game, but x100.
I want players to be able to learn by playing.
Quote from: smiorgan;725012I 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.
Although I learned to DM with no real guidance in the first games I played, I can see why most of the GMs I ever played with had the impression that their job was to make the player's lives a living hell when all of the rules focus on making things hard for players.
I think how to GM sections can be very beneficial for newer GMs to get an understanding of what the purpose of the GM is
for that particular game, especially when some games are intended as player vs. GM, player vs. player, or player and GM working together. Games can be played outside their intended focus, but rules are often designed in ways that fit a particular approach and knowing that that is can really help.
Quote from: Benoist;725075I really don't see the harm in actually having sections clearly showing "information for the players" and "information for the GM".
So "shouldn't," really? Why not?
I should've appended an "ideally" before those. What I meant is that these labels should be a suggestion rather than an iron-clad mandate.
Quote from: Benoist;725075You mean before the start of play? I don't want to have to require that from anyone. It'd be like insisting everyone should read the entire booklet of RISK before playing the game, but x100.
I want players to be able to learn by playing.
Not beforehand, no. Again, I should've appended an "ideally" here. Most of my players have at least working knowledge of the rules (though I did game for over 15 years with a guy who didn't know which to dice to roll to hit with in a D&D game. Now
that was annoying), but the only one who really needs to know what the hell is going on, is the GM.
OK That totally clarifies it for me. :)
A section on guidance for GMing the particular game would be great, as would a section on guidance for players, but they would be totally optional - except for a game that bills itself for beginners. I have nothing against GM-only sections per se, though I feel that many games don't need them, but only put them in because they are expected. Most scenarios - depending completely on the type of scenario - should have a GM-only section, but this would apply only to introductory scenarios, as we are talking about game books. Regular scenarios/adventures/modules should be assumed to be entirely GM-only by default.
-clash
I like the way Hero Games does things with their setting books. They have a "GM's Vault" at the back, that gives away the secrets of the world the book is about.
The main section will mention places, NPC's, history, etc., and the GM Vault will clarify what is true, what is bullshit, and what is just rumours. It will also explain parts of the world and history that the PC's wouldn't necessarily know about.
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).
Seeing my notes in advance? Do you mean of the adventure about to be run? As in good guys, villains, force intel, stats and stumbling blocks?
Wow. Sorry, but I can't characterize any GM who'd knuckle under to such a request other than with the word "spineless." WTF, did they also go into poker games demanding everyone play their cards on the table?
Quote from: Ravenswing;725221Seeing my notes in advance? Do you mean of the adventure about to be run? As in good guys, villains, force intel, stats and stumbling blocks?
Literally.
As far as I could tell (from limited exposure), one individual admitted playing video games regularly using "god mode" cheat codes.
Quote from: Ravenswing;725221WTF, did they also go into poker games demanding everyone play their cards on the table?
With this particular group, I wouldn't be surprised if this was also their mentality in regard to card games.
Quote from: Ravenswing;725221Wow. Sorry, but I can't characterize any GM who'd knuckle under to such a request other than with the word "spineless."
Plenty of people who
can stand up to stupidity will acquiesce to keep the peace. The alternative might be burning social bridges you don't want to.
Still, the trick is to be prepared. That's why my GM's notes always have a full colour A4 photo of my buttocks on page 2. If they read past that, they deserve a reward.
Quote from: ggroy;725046This 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.
Hell, I wouldn't have even played the first session with a bunch of idiots like that.
When I first started playing, the rules weren't published. Other than knowing it was approximately based off CHAINMAIL, the game was ABOUT discovering the rules empirically.
It's the most fun I have EVER had in D&D.
Quote from: Old Geezer;725413When I first started playing, the rules weren't published. Other than knowing it was approximately based off CHAINMAIL, the game was ABOUT discovering the rules empirically.
It's the most fun I have EVER had in D&D.
For some people, something like this would be an absolute nightmare. :rolleyes:
The only other niche I can think of offhand that is also really like this, is cryptography. (ie. People who are into cracking codes, passwords, etc ...).
Quote from: ggroy;725419For some people, something like this would be an absolute nightmare. :rolleyes:
The only other niche I can think of offhand that is also really like this, is cryptography. (ie. People who are into cracking codes, passwords, etc ...).
Actually, it's a major branch of miniatures wargaming; free kriegspiel.
On the flipside of the issue I hate it when GMs can't resist spilling the beans about the metaplot and secrets of the setting.
Our Earthdawn GM loves the setting and will show us big maps and point out what's going on where. Past, present AND future... telling us that who will win which war and which areas are doomed.
He's already told me, out of game, that my PC's sister, the big goal of his multi-year quest, is dead. GAH! He just can't help himself.
Now, every time he starts into 'the big picture' I start shouting 'Don't DO THAT!'
The elements of surprise and mystery are a big part of what I enjoy in a game. I don't want to know what was down that other hallway we didn't investigate or who REALLY killed Uncle Whatsit... it's better left unknown.
I can only imagine playing Kult with the guy, he'd be revealing all the secrets in the first session.
Quote from: Old Geezer;725426Actually, it's a major branch of miniatures wargaming; free kriegspiel.
Or a kriegspiel version of chess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegspiel_%28chess%29
My very opinionated thoughts on this topic:
"Good" players that are in it for the fun, and support the gm's efforts to make the game work, are not a problem even if they read the 'GM only' info.
However, "Bad" players, might give the gm crap, ruin immersion, rules lawyer the game to get advantages, whatever.
So I personally as a player and as a gm, have no problem at all with players not knowing all the gm only information.
Ravenloft is a good example of a setting where it just works better if the players know nothing at all about the 'secrets' of the plane.
"Bad" players will start calculating their dark powers rating and crap like that.
Quote from: ggroy;725505Or a kriegspiel version of chess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegspiel_%28chess%29
Stratego! Woot!
Quote from: Simlasa;725435On the flipside of the issue I hate it when GMs can't resist spilling the beans about the metaplot and secrets of the setting.
Our Earthdawn GM loves the setting and will show us big maps and point out what's going on where. Past, present AND future... telling us that who will win which war and which areas are doomed.
He's already told me, out of game, that my PC's sister, the big goal of his multi-year quest, is dead. GAH! He just can't help himself.
Now, every time he starts into 'the big picture' I start shouting 'Don't DO THAT!'
The elements of surprise and mystery are a big part of what I enjoy in a game. I don't want to know what was down that other hallway we didn't investigate or who REALLY killed Uncle Whatsit... it's better left unknown.
I can only imagine playing Kult with the guy, he'd be revealing all the secrets in the first session.
Man, that's profoundly shitty.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Bill;725847My very opinionated thoughts on this topic:
"Good" players that are in it for the fun, and support the gm's efforts to make the game work, are not a problem even if they read the 'GM only' info.
However, "Bad" players, might give the gm crap, ruin immersion, rules lawyer the game to get advantages, whatever.
So I personally as a player and as a gm, have no problem at all with players not knowing all the gm only information.
Ravenloft is a good example of a setting where it just works better if the players know nothing at all about the 'secrets' of the plane.
"Bad" players will start calculating their dark powers rating and crap like that.
I care less as a referee than as a player. I want to find out things I didn't know.
"HOLY FUCK WHAT WAS THAT?"
A year later after the rules were published we found out it was an Invisible Stalker.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;724988I 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.
Same here.
I like being able to refference the DMG while the players are glancing over the PHB. ShadowRun, Rifts, etc its either have more than one book, or pass it round and round and sure enough the players are going to try and memorize the monsters.
Quote from: Old Geezer;726806I care less as a referee than as a player. I want to find out things I didn't know.
"HOLY FUCK WHAT WAS THAT?"
A year later after the rules were published we found out it was an Invisible Stalker.
Its more fun not to know every detail, for me anyway. Some players seem to prefer total meta game knowledge and I just don't relate. For example, some would want to know the gm was strictly running an 'Invisible Stalker RAW' instead of enjoying the mystery.
GM only rules? Nah, I don't really have those.
GM only sections in adventures? Absolutely. Players reading the adventure is akin to me like someone reading all the plot twists before watching a movie.
Quote from: Bill;727113Its more fun not to know every detail, for me anyway. Some players seem to prefer total meta game knowledge and I just don't relate. For example, some would want to know the gm was strictly running an 'Invisible Stalker RAW' instead of enjoying the mystery.
Such people have toilet training issues.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;727120GM only rules? Nah, I don't really have those.
The only case I can really see for GM only rules is something like madness rules in a CoC style game. Not knowing exactly how madness is implemented on purpose could be really immersive for players.
I like the element of surprise when i play, so i'm all in favour of GM only material - whether that is monster stats, secret societies and the like.
Quote from: Old Geezer;727222Such people have toilet training issues.
Or at least control and trust issues to some degree.
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;724980Some RPGs (Paranoia and Kult for example) specifically have parts of the game that are "Off Limits" to players.
I mostly only run generic systems and most of them don't seem to have this section as such.
As for adventures, I almost never run anything published and I make shit up as I go along. My "notes" consist of a white board or battle mat to draw maps on , a blank notebook to keep track of what has happened (and later the same notebook with past notes) and probably the names of the first NPCs and maybe a map or two I think I might use.
I also seldom use specific creatures unless they are generic-ish. Like an Orc might be a mook with an axe, or it might be a veteran of many battles, and a shaman to boot. I mostly make up new critters.
On those occasions when I am running a published setting, I inform people that while I will try to adhere the generalities, the specifics may vastly differ from the rumors they might have read in the main books. The absolute worst reaction to this I've had were from WoD players, primarily Vampire, even when I wasn't even using the storyteller system for that world.
And other than those players I've largely had good reactions to my games.
The worst games I feel I've run are the ones where I tried to prepare and use stuff "as written" because 5 minutes into it the many players typically have better ideas than the one writer (or GM in my case) and I'd just as soon steal their ideas for what is actually going on.
Half of the people I play with are GMs themselves and know quite a number of systems, so a "GM onlyt" part of a book won't work unless it is a completely new system only the current GM knows.
I think that there's a difference between a "GM section" of an RPG book and a "GM-ONLY section". The former is just a place to deal with those rules that players don't really need to know. The latter is usually a problematic sort of thing not least because it assumes players cannot make a division between in-character and out-of-character knowledge... and moreso, because those players who really can't will just cheat anyways and look!
Worth pointing out too that in Paranoia the GM-only section is only winkingly a GM-only section. Given that Paranoia is built on taking all of the OOC assumptions of other RPGs and inverting them as much as possible whilst still just about retaining a traditional RPG framework, in fact it's just fine reading the GM-only stuff in Paranoia provided that nobody can prove you did it.
Quote from: Warthur;728753Worth pointing out too that in Paranoia the GM-only section is only winkingly a GM-only section. Given that Paranoia is built on taking all of the OOC assumptions of other RPGs and inverting them as much as possible whilst still just about retaining a traditional RPG framework, in fact it's just fine reading the GM-only stuff in Paranoia provided that nobody can prove you did it.
Do you have clearance to read that, Citizen?
Of course, the bad thing about Paranoia is that people clutter up discussions about it with goofy security clearance talk which has no place outside an actual game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;728747I think that there's a difference between a "GM section" of an RPG book and a "GM-ONLY section". The former is just a place to deal with those rules that players don't really need to know. The latter is usually a problematic sort of thing not least because it assumes players cannot make a division between in-character and out-of-character knowledge... and moreso, because those players who really can't will just cheat anyways and look!
Cheaters gonna Cheat.
Really. Thats the game design advice I keep giving to designers who obsess over trying to prevent player cheating. You cant do it 100%. There are allways ways to circumvent rules if someone has the urge.