It's a simple question, really: Is it okay for the players to read the monster manuals?
I'll discuss my take on it, but first I threw up a poll to see what the readers of my ramblings think about this.
I remember (but can't locate) reading a blog post about Jeff Rients's game - apparently he encourages people to read the monster manuals. Or at least lets them do it.
At least one of my players has practically memorized the monsters from the D&D-lineage games. Endless reading of the monster manuals, playing D&D-based games, and a sharp memory has given him a huge amount of out-of-game knowledge. Others have no clue beyond video games and hazy memories of early gaming days.
How about you guys?
This came up in a game the other day - my players are kids of eight and nine and so hadn't read the Monster Manual but were able to access online info on trolls and the way to kill them via their iPods. I ruled that since their characters wouldn't have info about this, the players couldn't use it (frustrating for them). The next session, I dropped a few hints (trolls not crossing barrier of fire) to lead them to the conclusion. So now they know.
ReplyDeleteBut what about when those characters die/retire? Say the players encounter trolls again and try to use the knowledge their previous characters gained?
Tricky question.
It seems to me that in a world that has monsters, people would know basic information about them. If they're professional adventurers? Even more so. As a GM, you have to think about what the characters would reasonably know as citizens of the world that you've created.
ReplyDeleteBecause I play with veteran guys they know the monster manual as well if not better than I do. Considering monsters are somewhat common in the world I also assume they would hear stories about them, learn the mythology of them and what not. So a basic understanding is not out of order. But since I am GM I can alter an ability or change it to mae it more interesting. And of course making new monsters is the solution to this. Which I do if I want to put the players on edge.
ReplyDeleteI think it's less a question of letting them and more a question of how to deal with the fact that some will. That's particularly the case when, as among the people I game with, there are multiple people who GM; I can't very well forbid one of my players from reading, say, DFM1 if he's going to be running a DF adventure himself next week. I assume anything published is likely to be public knowledge and accept that players may have a good idea of what common monsters' stats might be. That's fairly easy to rationalize, if one feels the need. As Ben suggests, if monsters are common, there will be common knowledge about them. If I want monsters about which characters have to learn, I'll make it up myself (or, more likely, take an existing monster, change the description, and make small tweaks to whatever their original possibly secret traits are).
ReplyDeletePersonally I only ever used those things for inspiration, so player knowledge if followed too close could get them in trouble, as those silver vulnerabilities become copper or iron vulnerabilities, those garlic allergies become wolfsbane allergies and so on.
ReplyDeleteI voted yes and they can use the info.
ReplyDeleteI don't encourage it, but I assume that they might. And I often don't use monsters directly out of the book (though it takes a bit more work to develop new monsters for 4E than basic D&D).
Also, think about folklore around vampires and werewolves. I wouldn't get bent out of shape if a PC went after a troll with fire and acid for a similar reason.
My current knowledge skill rules: PCs that make their roll get to make stuff up about the world or their enemies (subject to referee veto of course). So my players are not only reading the bestiary, they are helping to write it.
My vote falls toward the lonely 'other' option, because I don't use the monster manual! Haha! It's all made up, or loosely based on my interpretation of classic or obscure mythology.
ReplyDeleteUntil they've seen the monster before, how do they know it's a troll, and not an ogre, or a hill giant, or a goblin with a potion of growth? If you're using the name, you have to expect them to use what they know. If you don't use the name... What do they know?
ReplyDeleteOther. Sure they can read (two of them probably know it better than me) but I change things at will and use about 1/2 normal monsters and 1/2 apocryphal 9original or yoinked from other games/blogs/etc.)
ReplyDeleteI use a lot of oddball things for this reason, too. My players certainly know the D&D canon monsters about as well as I do, some of them better than I do. And some weird ones too. So more than once I've used a whole-cloth made-up monster only to have one of my players say "This is like these guys in a video game I once played . . . "
DeleteA blanket reply! Some of these may be more devil's advocate than stating my position, but here it goes:
ReplyDelete@Daddy Grognard: If you're letting player knowledge matter, it automatically has continuity to the next character. If you're firewalling character knowledge from player knowledge, they shouldn't have any continuity. IMO.
@Ben Thul: I agree - but an implied part of the question is, should they have such absolute knowledge as to know the stats and weaknesses and strengths of a monster? "Oh, an ogre. If this was AD&D it would have 4+1 hit dice and do 1d10 damage." That's pretty specific knowledge right there. Plus then all monster hunter characters should have that knowledge even if the player is new, which is a different look at the question.
@Tim: Yeah, I agree with you there on the basic knowledge. But like I just wrote, there is an issue of encyclopedic knowledge - "Oh, these guys have 30 HP and die at -1xHP automatically and it has DR 4, so I can kill one every 5 turns if I roll average damage." I have a guy who can calculate that, which is where changing the monsters comes in.
@Iron Llama: I'm right there with you - how would you you stop them anyway? With more obscure games, it's easier, but with big-ticket games like D&D or with long-running games (some of my GURPS players have played with me for decades) it's hard to stop them.
@Ze: Yeah, it's easy enough to circumvent the knowledge if they have it.
@Brendan: I like that idea of "player knowledge informs the game world." I do it, too, but not in any formal way. I've done it with monsters, too.
@Joshua: That's a very valid approach.
@David: That's a good point, but it often happens that the locals say "That cave is filled with ogres and trolls." Now they've got a name, but they don't know what that name means to the locals. It's as helpful as saying "That cave is filled with pit traps." I know what a pit trap means, but the specifics can vary a lot.
A reply to your reply: unless the PCs could quantify such things (and they likely can't because AFAIK we can't do that in the real world), you have to translate that stuff into descriptors. So, instead of "4+1 hit dice and 1d10 damage" it has to be something like "you've heard stories of ogres shrugging off sword blows and knocking people down with one blow!"
ReplyDeleteYeah, but I meant the players having that kind of detail- even if their characters don't. "These guys normally need +2 weapons to hit and we've only got +1." That sort of thing. Not saying this is a problem, really, just something to be aware of.
DeleteAnd @Ze, yeah, sometimes my games are like that. :)
Well, unless you're playing in an OOTS style game, where the PCs really do say hit dice and 1d10 damage...
ReplyDeleteYes, and the character's know the information as well, but the character's information is mimetic rather than fully diegetic, and in both cases the information is frequently incomplete.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, characters in my game are easily able to size up basic information about encountered or generally known monsters. I will freely tell players the hit dice, AC, movement, attacks, damage, and common traits and special abilities of monsters and NPCS, and assume that the characters know the same information in their own terms.
What I don't share are the special abilities of the particular individuals encountered, which are very frequently randomly generated.
That's another way to do it - I prefer not to use game terms in descriptions, I feel like it pulls me out of "in character" to "playing a tabletop wargame." But like I've said in other posts, I'll just roll damage in front of everyone and let them derive stats from what happens.
DeletePlayers should not read ANY book except the PHB and player supplements. They should NEVER look up modules or monsters online. That defeats the purpose of a goddamn exploration game. DMs are all castrated these daysx the first time a player deliberately metagames like thst I charge his PC for extensive consultation of sages...say ghe cost of one question per page of the manual. The secons time he does it he will not be invited back to the table. Its a childish, lazy, cheating video game thing to do. Its as bad as teamkilling.
ReplyDelete1) Players who aren't also DMs still exist? Most players I've played with have DMed games in the past, are actively DMing their own game, or are considering DMing in the near future. How do you expect people NOT to read the Monster Manual?
ReplyDelete2) Just change the descriptions. Orcs? Make them dog-people or something. Lizardmen? Suarials. Owlbear? Giant scaled bipedal lizard. There go you, problem solved.
1) Yes. Half of my players have never GMed. I didn't think that was uncommon.
Delete2) That's the usual solution, but it means lots of swapping around of descriptions.