There's some truth to it, in principle.  

As Tyberious mentions in his post, all those critters in the MM sort of lose their fear factor when you know everyne in the party's read this stuff, knows what it is, what it does, what it's capable of.

Honestly, I think it creates sort of a toss up.  The MM is a great resource in that you've got all these opponents pre-written and ready to go, but on the other hand, once those prebuilts become known quantities, they lose the element of surprise.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's some truth to it, in principle.  

As Tyberious mentions in his post, all those critters in the MM sort of lose their fear factor when you know everyne in the party's read this stuff, knows what it is, what it does, what it's capable of.

Honestly, I think it creates sort of a toss up.  The MM is a great resource in that you've got all these opponents pre-written and ready to go, but on the other hand, once those prebuilts become known quantities, they lose the element of surprise.

Which is why I like third party d20 stuff. It's relatively easy to pull out a book that most players don't own and have them saying "what the heck was that" and still be fully supported.

And the players who are all sharp on the wizards stuff are almost easier to fool, because they assume it's some obscure WotC thing. I pulled out a shapeshifting creature called a tempus twin from Creature Collection 2. One player was totally convinced it was a changeling from eberron.

Until it stared making time duplicates of itself and time hopping out of combat. :hehe:

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSuch a trick would never work these days... if a party of 3rd level characters came across a blue dragon, some smartarse would invariably shout out "No way dude, the CR of a dragon is far too high.  It's got to be an illusion."

And after that, at least in my game, they would be in for a biiiig surprise.

(Actually, what a lot of gamers miss is that you can actually negotiate with monsters. Dragons are susceptible to flattery and groveling; but of course, player egos are precious things getting even more precious nowdays...)

I got one Gygax story .  I made the guy laugh at Gen*con (2000 or 2001)   and he looked like he'd had a really long day .

- E.W.C.

Quote from: Melan(Actually, what a lot of gamers miss is that you can actually negotiate with monsters. Dragons are susceptible to flattery and groveling; but of course, player egos are precious things getting even more precious nowdays...)

Negotiate?  What a novel thought.  I'm reminded of a D&D game I played where my low-level bard and low-level thief friend stumbled across a party of ogre bandits.  My first reaction was to sneak away before the ogres noticed us.  My friend, on the other hand, loudly claimed "I'm pretty sure we can beat them.  The DM wouldn't present us with an impossible fight!"  

*splat*

*splat*

"Run.  Run.  Every man for himself!"

Quote from: RPGPunditYou know, a huge problem with gaming today comes down to players wanting to be GMs, and GMs wanting to be players.

I don't know, in my group everybody GMs some game, for example, right now I'm a player in an Aquelarre game, when that game is done, I will be GM, and after me, another of my friends will be the GM.

I was very surprised when I discovered that other groups have a "full time" GM, kinda "I'm the GM, you're my bitches" :pimpdahoe:. I don't think stopping players from reading books (except scenarios, of course) is a good thing. Besides, it drives me nuts when a GM thinks I shouldn't have rule information (for example, how many XPs I need to go up a level) or setting information (for example, who Assamites are). I just think they want to control me for the sake of it.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonAnd I'm left with the opposite feeling.  I want my players to feel free to contribute to the game on a mechanical level, and I feel like hiding information about how the game works prohibits them from doing so.  I want to talk about games with the people I play with, encourage them to run their own games, and explore the hobby.

Oh, I hadn't seen your post before, otherwise, instead of writing what I just wrote I'd have written a lame "I agree".

It's only a problem for players to want to be GMs, and GMs players, if one is really crap at the other. Or, I suppose, if you try to do both at once

Otherwise I don't see why it's a problem. Unless you are too lazy to GM, or too wussy to be a player.

Also, as Tyberious Funk was commenting the other night, it's a strange idea those old rpgs had, that players couldn't read the GM's book... so, what, if you GM a game once, you can never be a player again?

It comes down to this old assumption of many rpg books, that you're going to be playing the same rpg in the same campaign with the same group the same characters and the same person GMing for years on end. Which actually is a pretty unusual experience, that never will the group play any other rpg, or change campaigns, or get new players or lose old ones, or lose or change characters, or have someone else GM.

Wait, wait. I'd like to see if Pundit is really advocating that one member of the group always be a GM, and the rest only play, before we start harping on that idea. It's possible that 'underlying truth' is something actually insightful, though I'm willing to entertain the idea it's actually that ridiculous and largely (wisely) extinct idea. Except for Paranoia.

Within my own group, all but one of us (the most casual gamer among us) are willing and able to GM at various times; we just each prefer to run different systems. Whether it's because of the setting, the mechanics, or just familiarity, we tend towards running those games above others. That said, we all want to play with our favorite settings and rules too, so we'll trade them off now and then. I'm not sure it's ALL that unusual.

As far as i can see, the underlying truth for some is that not knowing all the details of how a system works, or all the details of a setting can lead to the fun of discovery. If you know everything, then there is the posibility that you are continually metagaming so as not to effect your decisions in game to reflect that knowledge. Finding something out for the first time can be delightful and adds to a sense of wonder in game. Like finding out that the spell descriptions leaves out some random effects, or that the enclave of Elves you read about are in fact uber Elves from the planet krypton with magical buckets (well, alright, that's silly, but you get the idea).

These days, both player and GM/DM seem to know everything and metagaming is just as much a part of the game as playing. This incidentally, is why i really don't like point buy systems that much (and would prefer less feats & PrC in d&d). I'd rather be able to make up a character and learn about both the game system and setting in play, than before i've started.

It's about discovery and wonder.....I think....

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's some truth to it, in principle.  

As Tyberious mentions in his post, all those critters in the MM sort of lose their fear factor when you know everyne in the party's read this stuff, knows what it is, what it does, what it's capable of.

Honestly, I think it creates sort of a toss up.  The MM is a great resource in that you've got all these opponents pre-written and ready to go, but on the other hand, once those prebuilts become known quantities, they lose the element of surprise.

The GM of the D&D game I play in. Changes the AC and HD of creatures to suit his uses. So even if you know what the book says. Its not nessarily true.

Quote from: RoninThe GM of the D&D game I play in. Changes the AC and HD of creatures to suit his uses. So even if you know what the book says. Its not nessarily true.

It's a bit klugey, though, don't you tihnk?

And rather defeats the entire usefulness of the MM if you have to hand tweak everything.

Not to mention bearing a bit of a bait-and-switch flavor to it, which I'm not any more comfortable with than the alternative.

Quote from: TonyLBSo share!  What's the underlying, very true thing?

That there's a fundamental issue today, and most problems in gaming stem from it, of Game Masters wanting to be players, and players wanting to be GM, and everyone wanting to be rules lawyers.

And that this can be solved by having clear understanding of what each person's role is in the gaming group.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's only a problem for players to want to be GMs, and GMs players, if one is really crap at the other. Or, I suppose, if you try to do both at once

That would be the key issue, Jimbob.  If you're a GM but you want to act like a player, you've got a situation where you end up abusing your power and wrecking the game.  Players wanting to be GM end up rules-lawyering and generally being annoying little fucks who can likewise wreck the game if the GM doesn't stop them.

RPGPundit