Let’s try a crazy experiment today. I’m going to let you write the article. Kind of.
See, I want to throw a question to you, my readers, and I want you to really think about it and try to answer it before you read my analysis and answer. Because while I do have a really good analysis and a really good answer, probably not the one you’re expecting, I really want to know how you’d answer this question.
So, I’m going to pose the question and invite you to answer it in the comments below. And since I’m releasing this on a weekend — at least to my Early Access supporters — I’m going to hold back my answer for a few days and then post it as a separate post. If you’re reading this on my front page, you’ll still find the answer in a separate post after a delay.
The only thing I ask is that you let me fully clarify the question before you try to answer. Because I’m going to ask a question that’s been asked before, but I’m going to ask it in a way I don’t think anyone else has, because I’m not interested in the things most people are. It’s my cross to bear as a sexy gaming genius.
The question is this…
Should players read the Dungeon Master’s Guide?
Wait! Don’t start tippity-typing your comment. Remember you promised to let me clarify. Well, I’ve got about a 1,700 worlds of clarification. The question isn’t what you think.
My first clarification is that I’m not asking about whether the players should know the rules. That’s not what this is about.
The truth is, I know that I’m at odds with lots of you on that point. I know lots of Game Masters stupidly and incorrectly think that it’s reasonable to demand that players learn the rules of the game. I’ve read the screeds about how, at minimum, “Every player should know what’s on their character sheet and how it all works. I’m tired of shouting myself hoarse and typing my fingers to the bone trying to get you to listen to reason. I have no interest in having that fight again.
So, this ain’t about whether the players should be expected to know the rules and whether you, as a Game Master, should demand such.
My first clarification is that I’m not asking for you to scream bullshit about metagaming at me. I’m not asking about whether players reading the Big Ole Book of Monster Stats are violating some sacred gaming covenant. I’m not asking whether players should be banished from the table for reading the adventure module du the jour. Because, of course, the answer is that players absolutely should not be reading the module ahead, and they really shouldn’t read the monster stat book, but also that what you think is metagaming doesn’t exist and can’t hurt you while real, actual metagaming is just necessary for keeping the game running.
So, this ain’t about whether monsters should be allowed to ruin adventure modules by reading ahead or consult monster stat blocks at the table or whatever.
My third and fourth clarifications come together. They’re about reasonableness. When you answer, you must accept that there are players and then there are players, and you must accept that there’s a difference between a principle and the enforcement of said principle.
Some players are going to read things even if you don’t think they should. Some players are also Game Masters and have to read the things you don’t think they should. Some players enjoy reading game materials. Some players are just asshats. That’s going to happen. It’s part of practical reality you just have to accept. But it’s also not something that happens at most tables with most players.
The truth is that most roleplaying game players at normal tables are Sunday Gamers. They show up every Sunday morning for the game, but as soon as they get home, they dump their gaming clothes in a pile on the floor, toss their book on a shelf, and don’t think about gaming again until next Sunday. They ain’t opening the book between games. Hell, most of the players I know don’t even own a book. They just borrow mine or piggyback off my D&D Beyond subscription.
Meanwhile, there’s not really anything you can do about the players that do read the stuff you’ve declared off limits? Are you really going to boot a player just because they read Chapter 6: The Super Secret Chapter for Game Master’s Only? If a player reads the module ahead and then says something like, “Wait, that treasure chest is actually a mimic covered in contact poison; trust me, I read the module,” that’s definitely a “Can I see you outside?” situation. Likewise, if a player looks up monsters in the Bestiary at the table, I’m pretty sure you’re legally allowed to player them unconscious in most American states. But that stuff is more about flagrantly game-ruining behavior at the table. It ain’t really about reading ahead.
As an aside, the Angry Lawyer is making his constipation face and turning a very ugly shade of purple, so I should probably point out that nothing I say constitutes actual legal advice, so, you know, maybe check with a legal professional before you beat any of your players unconscious for any reason.
So, what then is the question actually about? Because it isn’t just an academic question. What it’s really about is the idea of how you present player-facing material. Or how you segregate GM-only material. Really, it’s about both.
I don’t know if you remember those old, sickeningly wholesome family sitcoms from the 90s. There was always an episode wherein the siblings would get into a feud and end up drawing a big line down the middle of the of their shared bedroom and yell, “My side; your side!” That also happened in at least one science-fiction television show with a farting Jim Henson Muppet. I shit you not.
Roleplaying games have traditionally been a lot like those feuding siblings. The editors or publishers or designers or whoever love to draw lines down the middle of the system and then yell, “Player side; GM side!” D&D is obviously the most flagrant of all about it; it actually puts the kids in separate rooms. There are player books and Game Master books. But even smaller, single-book systems have the same split. Even if a book doesn’t color code the pages and say, “This part is for Game Masters only, players are forbidden,” most have at least one chapter that’s explicit about Game Mastering around the midpoint of the book, and then every chapter after that is heavily implied to be GM-only content. Even Blades in the Dark follows that pattern.
Setting apart Game Master content tacitly sets up some expectations, even if there’s no explicit labels, warnings, or prohibitions. With D&D, the expectation is that players will read, learn, and own the Player’s Handbook and, even if the Dungeon Master’s Guide isn’t technically labeled as off-limits, players aren’t expected to buy, own, or read it. There’s nothing in there for players. With the softer division in books like Blades in the Dark, Chapter 7: Running the Game basically tells players when they’re allowed to stop reading. “There’s nothing more for you here. Run along and make a character.”
But there’s more to this than just telling the players they’re allowed to stop reading. A clear separation between player-facing material and GM-only material tells the Game Masters what they can expect the players to know. A D&D Dungeon Master can expect the players to know anything in the Player’s Handbook. In theory, anyway. I still think that’s a stupid expectation in actual, practical reality, and that it’s also unnecessary and bad for the game, but that’s not on-topic for today, so let me say this a little more generally. A D&D Dungeon Master can expect the players to have access to anything in the Player’s Handbook. Moreover, a Dungeon Master doesn’t have to worry about a player opening the Player’s Handbook at the table. That material is safe for the players to access at any time for any reason.
See, one of the things the big line between player-facing content and GM-only content reveals is what the game’s designers feel should be accessible to the players in the normal course of play. Everything that isn’t player-facing is either unnecessary for the players to access or else access to it might have a detrimental impact on the game. And again, all of this is by implication. The existence of the line is enough to communicate this.
And that is the thing that interests me. That’s the question I want to talk about. I don’t want to piss and moan about metagaming or argue about whether it’s practical to demand the players read and learn anything. I don’t want to argue about whether the players should be allowed to read the Game Master’s secret tomes and what should be done to punish interlopers. Instead, I want to examine this from a design system standpoint.
So, do roleplaying games need to separate player-facing materials and GM-only materials at all? What are the benefits? Are there downsides?
If there is a reason to separate the materials, how strong should it be? Once upon a time, the Game Mastering book that came in the book had a warning on the front like, “Stop! Don’t read this unless you’re actually running the game! This isn’t for you!” We’ve gotten away from that, and maybe that’s for the best, but a lot of modern systems seem ashamed to even suggest that some things are better off kept hidden from the players. They treat the line between player-facing material and GM-only material as merely a matter of practicality and approachability.
Finally, if there is a reason to be explicit about some knowledge not being for players, what sorts of stuff should be buried in the Secret Tomes of the High Priests of Game Masterdom?
In other words, “Should the players have access to all game materials or should some stuff be explicitly labeled as being for Game Masters only and, if so, what stuff should be labeled that way?”
So that’s it. That’s the question. As clear as I can ask it. Now, I invite you to answer. In a few days or a week or whatever, I’ll give you my answer. It’ll probably surprise a lot of you.
Also note that due to heavy, ongoing spam activity, some comments may take up to 24-hours to get approved or 48-hours on weekends. Don’t panic if your essay doesn’t pop right away. Happy blogging.
At first, I wanted to say yes, a player should read the DMG. What harm does it do for an average player to learn a little bit about the procedure of making a game, after all? It’s not like they’re reading monster stats or the next part of the module they’re playing. But what if they start reading through the Magic Items? What if they see stuff that they had no clue existed previously? What if they read the rules for creating Magic Items, and in doing so it sucks the magic out of finding a new one, because they already will have an idea of what to expect? What if the player asks if they can find such and such magic item in the world?
And that’s not the only thing, either. There’s critical setting details on Greyhawk and its Cosmology in the 2024e DMG that aren’t in the PHB, or aren’t elaborated on in detail. There are a lot of things in the DMG that can ruin surprises or potentially suck all the magic out of the world. In a way, it’s almost like reading an author’s notes on the story they’re writing before they read the story itself.
But I think the real question here isn’t “Should players read the DMG?” It’s “does it benefit the game if the players read the DMG?” And the answer, I think, is no. Even if we assume they don’t ever read anything that could spoil a surprise, there’s not really much benefit to the player knowing how a GM is going to string adventures together to form a campaign. What’s a player supposed to do with that sort of information, anyway? Without access to the GM’s campaign bible or the module they’re running, it doesn’t change their decision making. The player is still in the scenario the GM laid out, they’re still limited by the tools they have at their disposal and their decision making.
In short: no, players should not read the DMG. It’s too much work for almost no benefit.
Nothing but adventure modules needs to try to be for GM’s only.
Even the sample adventure in the basic rules is likely to be a better explanation of how the game actually plays than anything else in the rulebook. I’m fine with players reading it, even if I’m planning to run it (the intro adventure should be a “how does this work thing”, more information is helpful for some people in following what’s going on and learning how it works) and the first intro adventure shouldn’t be a shock about the basics of what’s happening.
First, from a design perspective I think a line of demarcation between GM and player content is mandatory for one reason: it lowers the barrier to entry for new players. To be frank, I think there could/should be a lot less in the PHB and maybe even draw another line, “this is what you need to start playing” (even as little as a few pages), and “this is player facing content”. When I ran some sessions of Monster of the Week on our off nights, I actually took my purchased pdf copy and reduced it to about 30 pages of what they needed to play. It was pretty much the only way I could get people willing to step out of their comfort and try it. Increasing the mental barrier to start playing just doesn’t work for most people (there’s a place for Twilight Imperium, but try getting your family to give that a shot on game night). And the differences of these lines are the difference between a pick-up soccer game, club level with a ref, and the pro level.
I think those who are interested should be encouraged to read the rest, including GM sections. And it should be in a single book. But I also think that being a GM, even for a one shot, makes better players. It takes some with passion and interest to take that next step of reading that extra material. Should a player read that there’s multiple ways to dole out XP? They don’t need to, but if they have the interest they should. It gives a greater insight into how the system is constructed, appreciation for the work that goes into running a game, and confidence that there is fairness on both sides of the screen.
However, the most important portion of the player AND GM section is this: the table implementation of any content is at the GMs discretion. Just like you can’t assume that you can use a sourcebook, you can’t assume that the crafting or downtime rules will be run exactly as is presented here.
All of the information that would spoil a player should be contained in adventure material rather than “how to run a game” with one exception that Angry has touched on before. I don’t think you can have an effective GM section without touching on adventure design. Knowing how the sausage is made from a design perspective can spoil the magic for some people. If you’re the movie critic whose industry knowledge spoils the art of watching a movie, you’ve taken away that pleasure and enjoyment. Seeing the threadbare suits over the animatronics can hamper your ability to engage with the ride. Not everyone is like this, but some people are. I’ve been a player in two campaigns since the one I GM’d and I’ve had to remind myself of Angry’s Hat Theory more than once; keeping a player hat on while playing is just as important as separating the GM hat from the adventure designer hat.
On the other hand, there’s one additional benefit for keeping soft lines: exposing players to what’s involved behind the scenes inspires some of them (raises hand) to become GMs. And the TTRPG hobby is better and healthier when there are more GMs and potential GMs in the system. It shouldn’t be a terrifying pseudo-priesthood, it should be an open club to run games and get better at running games. FWIW, grawlixes aside, this blog is the perfect encapsulation of that and Angry and this community is an incredible help for all of us who want to run the best games we can.
A tangential question: Is it mandatory for the GM to read the DMG? All of it? And if not, where does that fit in the design and publishing space? While I was thinking through this from the players’ side, I kept wondering about default assumptions between tables, house rules, “rulings not rules”, and whether any of that actually matters.
I think the simple answer is: no, the players shouldn’t read the dungeon master’s guide. Why are they reading a book thatt’s not written for them when they won’t even read the book that WAS written for them. Show me you’ll read the PHB and then we can talk about whether you can read the DMG…
Joking aside, I wonder whether the point is that while D&D has a clear split between “books for players” and “books for DMs”, in actual fact, the content of those books isn’t properly split. I don’t think that anyone would argue that players should be reading adventure modules, but then, why do most adventure modules have player facing element, like character options? Why is there a list of magic items in the DMG, but the list of mundane equipment is in the PHB?
I think the argument that there’s a clear difference between players and DMs is, at this point, well established, at least on this site. Players play the game, so they only need to know things that relate to how to play the game. They don’t need to know how the game works, only how to interact with the various bits of the game tha they can… well… interact with.
So, in simple terms, and to cut a long story short, players shouldn’t read content that is only for DMs, because they don’t need to. They have poor soft little player brains and we should protect them from complicated things. But they should have full access to everything player facing. RPG makers shouldn’t release books for DMs that contain player facing stuff.
No, the players should NOT read the dungeon master’s guide. One of my favorite ideas of yours was being able to have secret rewards and goodies in store, such as feats, spells, patrons, weapons, and anything else! I want to be able to be trusted as a Game Master to have my own personal vault and library that is distinct from what players can see.
> I’m pretty sure you’re legally allowed to player them unconscious in most American states.
I, for one, appreciate the use of “player” as a euphemism!
I also like the idea of identifying the set of information that the players should be expected to have readily available, and organizing the content to make that actually happen.
I think reading the DMG and learning its secrets is a one-way door that irrevocably changes the way the game’s going to feel for that player. Some players can still be good players and have fun, and even be helpful to the GM after lifting the veil, and some will probably be disillusioned by it and become problems at the table. It’s like the difference between somebody who can’t watch a movie any more after seeing the “how it was made” special vs somebody who still enjoys it just as much afterward, but for a different reason.
I’m a GM, and I’ve read the GM-only stuff for maybe a dozen systems and skimmed it for loads more than that, and sometimes I do wish I could shut that all off and just be a player when I’m in another GM’s game. I can see the structure underneath, and I have the vocabulary to criticize things I would do differently, and it affects my experience even though I’m careful to never actually let it out. I try to take that as an opportunity to do better at my player-job of being engaged and declaring good actions, and mostly it tends to work out and we all have a good time.
So I think that mostly, players shouldn’t read the GM material unless they think that the GM’s mental models are cool and fun in their own right and they can keep their ideas about how *they* would do things to themselves. I haven’t personally run into a player who I think would try to weaponize the knowledge in order to break the tools and prove the GM isn’t really “simulating a complete universe in his head,” but I know they exist. Those types would definitely ruin the game for everyone else involved, and that by itself is a good enough reason to say secrets should stay secret.
The game master’s mental models are the shortcuts and approximations that let the players make choices within the game’s rules to overcome challenges in the best way we can manage. They’re not perfect, the game’s rules can never be complete, and when you know that and see the imperfections, I think it makes it harder to get fully engaged and actually play the game as it’s intended.
They shouldn’t *have* to, but I don’t think it should matter if they *do*.
Recognising that some of the mechanics you need to run a system effectively are things players don’t need to know because they’re not running the game is useful. Putting the “how to run” rules in a different book to the “how to play” rules makes the distinction very clear. For people who sometimes GM and sometimes play, it’s a nice cognitive load reduction to know the things you can forget about as a player is “anything in the DMG”; for people who are only playing it’s a simple “you don’t need to think about these”. If players know those mechanics it doesn’t change anything.
IMO the knowledge that should be withheld from players in a “you knowing this without being told is actively bad” way is the subset of content that goes beyond “basic facts and common knowledge”. The stats of a basic sword? Sure. That magic swords exist? Maybe, depends on the setting. How exactly a fire sword +1 works? Probably not, but again depends on the setting. Which things are known and which aren’t are the GM and module builder’s job to define, and players shouldn’t go reading the bits that are meant to be learned and experienced as part of the game.
My first impulse when reading the question was “why the f**k ever not”. Then I read the 1700 words and the more clarified question at the end. Twice. My answer is still pretty much in line with my first impulse – I see no problem for players reading the DMG, the Monster Manual or Campaign Settings. Pretty much anything besides actual adventure modules. Unless they want to GM them – of course, then, they are not players anymore, are they?
But then I started thinking…
…maybe this opinion comes from my background? I am from Germany and I started playing TTRPG with “Das Schwarze Auge” (DSA, published in English as “The Dark Eye”), which is to this day the most popular TTRPG in Germany. Back in the nineties and the first decade of the 21st century, DSA did not have a Game Masters Manual. All content besides actual adventure modules were facing everyone. Character creation, combat, magic, setting, bestiary, cosmology, creation of magical artifacts – there was no boundary, everyone was allowed to read it. The “how to run a game” part was maybe a few pages in the very back and very barebones – and also not restricted to GMs. It was “hey, if anyone wants to run a game as GM, consider these few points for structure, NPC presentation, adjudication. Have fun, go nuts.”
The second system I played, was Call of Cthulhu. Here a clear delineation between Player content and GM content always made perfect sense to me – it increases the horror feeling that is pretty much the goal of the game, if you as a player know as little about arcane books, monsters and artifacts as the investigator you are playing. So here I definitely see a benefit.
Two systems in, and I already have two totally different answers. Damn.
In my D&D games, I do not restrict my players from reading the DMG or MM. I actually encourage them to read the MM and supporting literature as “The Monsters Know What They Are Doing” – the author of the latter explicitly states that it is not GM only. Knowing Monsters and likely Monster tactics makes for better Player Tactics and Gameplay.
And neither the 2014 nor the 2024 DMG has any content, that makes the game any better, if the players do not now it. In fact, there is plenty stuff in there, players should know (i.e. the concept of the adventuring day, the rules for mixing potions).
Reading informs the players about options that are there, but finally the GM decides what to use how. If anything, they can make a better appreciation of my work as GM in regards of how I run the game, created adventures, encounters and whole settings.
So after two readings of the question and some thinking I would like to modify my answer:
“Except for some Mystery/Horror Settings, where immersion can actually be increased for the players by not knowing about the Mystery behind the scenes, I don’t see why players should not read the DMG if they should wish to do so.”
Holy s**t, this got long winded. Are you really going to read all those answers here, Angry?
Apologies beforehand for potentially excessive essaying, I need to write myself through my own thoughts here. I’ve also made sure to not read any of the other replies here so I could formulate an answer that is properly *mine*. Also when I use terms like “factual” in the answer, that should be read a “factual consequence of my opinion and personal experiences”. That way of writing helps me organise my thoughts.
The first issue that comes to mind is that the player/GM split being posited is a false dichotomy. You can be a player in one game and a GM in another. Thus any answer must take into account that there can never be a strict line where player knowledge ends; any player may have been inducted in the mysterious arts of GMing and thus have access to all game materials (which, as an aside, also necessarily puts me in the Angrican camp on the issue of metagaming).
Editing this paragraph in halfway: This also immediately invalidates the dichotomy in the question and answers the first half “Should the players have access to all game materials”: Yes, the players should *have access* to all game materials. It is a factual and unchangeable part of gaming that a player may also be a GM, and thus a player cannot *not* have access to all game materials. That is, any published game materials, which is just about all game materials that are in use in the real world.
A second thing to consider is what happens when a player *does* read the current “GM-targeted” content. Personally, when I moved on to start GMing, I suddenly learned a lot about the game. Maybe I was just slow on the uptake as a player, since I had a lot of stuff click that I really could have picked up on beforehand, but the moment I looked at the game, in my case D&D, though a GM lens, it was a massive look behind the veil of the game. My understanding went from knowing abstract islands of mechanics to understanding the underlying logic behind them. I went from having to control 1 character for months or years on end to controlling multiple characters each combat scene, only for them to be gone by the end, and that is *supposed to happen*. As a player, that made it far easier to play the game. “How does X ability work” basically stopped coming up as a question.
But that isn’t because I read the GM-targeted content, it was because I had to *be* a GM. And although I was a good GM and did read the DMG, I don’t think whether I did and whether a player does really matters. I could have GM’d a perfectly acceptable first few games without the DMG, and the DMG itself contains little to prepare you for GMing a real game. I think the only thing that truly breaks that barrier is to GM an actual game and being forced to turn the gears of the game’s mechanics in your head.
And with that, I think I can give a satisfying answer (as in, satisfying to myself): Game content should be labeled as GM-only when it adds no value to what the player can understand about the game. Taking the D&D 2024 DMG as an example, a player gets little value out of knowing how to prepare a session. Or how to create a monster or trap. Or how to set up a satisfying ending to a game. Or how the optional renown system, that their GM likely doesn’t use, works. Reading most of the DMG would, or should, largely be a waste of time for the player. And it is only respectful to players to clearly indicate that.
I don’t think ttrpg rules can be presented in the same way as board game rules – that is, treating all participants as equals. The inherent asymmetry between participants must be embraced. If the GM functions as a special game mechanic, he should be treated as such. Players really only need to know what an RPG is and how to make choices for their characters. Furthermore, the less the rules clutter the players’ minds, the less their in-game choices will rely on them.
The rules should address the player as the decision-maker and the GM as the adjudicator of decisions. In this regard, perhaps the goal isn’t so much to draw a line of demarcation as to offer two different sets of explanations – with some overlap, of course.
In an ideal world, only the game master reads the rules, while the players learn the ropes as they play and retain essential information from one session to the next – much like in the best video games. This means the rules must not only teach the GM how to adjudicate player choices but also how to guide players through the process of making those choices, in one big book.
But in a slightly more realistic ideal world, players have access to a tailored, evolving document – kept as concise as possible. So, if such a document is to be implemented, it should be guided by practical considerations : what do players needs to make choices ?
For example this document could :
* introduces the RPG to complete beginners;
* outlines the rules, specifically the resolution system and the necessary dices;
* recaps the campaign setting and the characters roles within it;
* lists the options (feats, skills, spells) and equipment available during character creation (or list pregen characters).
* The document would also detail how to declare an action, as well as the “mental models” explaining how to play (covering aspects like exploration, social interaction, city shopping, camping, gathering, crafting, and so on). It wouldn’t go into the nitty-gritty of the rules the GM uses to adjudicate these situations of course.
* And in this ideal world, those lists (characters options, equipment, mental models) would be updated as the campaign progress.
* However, without being exhaustive, it should detail rules that function like heavy mini-games – such as combat – where pacing is crucial and players need to know the exact procedures to make quick decisions and contextualize their choices regarding their character’s options.
* Finally, as with any good board game, the main playing aid (the character sheet) is organized so that the mechanics available to players are immediately apparent : inventory, spells, combat options, conditions, health statut, and so on.
Of course, it’s difficult to separate this issue from editorial and commercial considerations. Structuring a single rulebook around this distinction can be a headache (and no reader is going to buy a book if they’re only going to read 20% of it). Yet, the ideal solution (creating two separate rules documents, one for the GM and one for the players) entails extra development work.
I don’t think players should read the dmg, generally. It bypasses them learning how to play to a certain extent. Let’s say you read the dmg and read about the encounter balance and adventuring day.
“ah, I don’t need to worry about getting my character killed, it’s highly unlikely to happen.” I think that negatively influences the play experience.
That said, some people will do it, so a dmg should be written such that when they do it’s OK. So no setting spoilers.
Is learning this information through play actually necessary? This is real, capital-M Metagame knowledge: “The DMG recommends about 6-8 encounters per day, we’re only at 2 and we’re pretty taxed. Better play a bit more cautiously if we’re planning on making it through the content we should to make progress.”
Setting aside that GMs have their own table preferences for tweaking the adventuring day (because that doesn’t really matter), what’s the benefit to emperically learning that over time as opposed to having it handed to players? There’s definitely a difference between “learning about playing” and “learning through playing”, I think that’s what you mean by “bypassing”, but my gut feeling is that the gap is smaller than larger. Maybe mechanical mastery better lends itself to “learning about playing” since it’s primarily self-improvement where role-playing relies on “learning through play” because its inherently co-operative.
So my first thought is that there is information that is not of interest to players at all. Like how to structure an adventure.
There’s information that is of interest but they shouldn’t really look at it. Like the module itself. And I extend that to stat blocks like monsters and traps and such that become part of modules. I can’t stop people from looking at it, but their experience will likely be better if they don’t. And if they’re actively studying it to get an edge, or at the table, that’s like the D&D equivalent of taking PEDs and I frown upon it. The default for any player with that kind of info should be to try to know as little as possible.
I would put both of those into the same book and call it the Adventure Builder’s Handbook or whatever. It implies it’s for a non-player audience. I might even put a note in there about who should read what’s inside, but maybe not because no one reads those things.
Then there is information that is for GMs who need to know the rules to run the game at the table. That kind of rulebook is an expectation on the GM, not the players, but I don’t care if the players read it.
And there’s information that is actively for players.
Those two I probably put in separate materials. So I think I still end up with a core three piles of information, but they’re organized differently. It’s like a small player handbook that just shows you how to make a character and pick your character options. A rulebook that’s like a reference tome or the very nice glossary in D&D 2024. And a chonky pile for scenario designers with stat blocks, adventure building advice, and so forth.
My gut instinct was to say “No, the players shouldn’t read the DMG, but it’s not going to ruin anything if they do,” but of course the challenge then became how to justify that.
So I cracked open the DMG (the 2014 one) to see what’s in it. I didn’t reread the whole thing cover to cover, just checked the table of contents.
Advice about building a world and campaign – I don’t see much of a problem with players reading this.
The multiverse and outer planes… Leaving aside my dislike for 5e’s handling of those topics, I don’t think players should know this stuff in advance – it takes much of the magic and mystery out of creatures from other planes.
How to create adventures – I don’t think it’s a huge problem for reasonable players to know the encounter balance/adventuring day math, but maybe it could be if they really don’t like the fact that it’s very hard for them to lose.
Creating NPCs and villainous class options. Again, shrug to creating NPCs. On the other hand, I think players absolutely should not know the villainous classes, if mostly to prevent them from wanting to play as them (something I have had to deal with in the past)
Adventure environments – wilderness, dungeons, etc. Another shrug. Knowing the effects of conditions like extreme weather, quicksand, and how traps work isn’t going to break anything if those come up.
Between adventures and downtime – I would say that downtime activities might need to be restricted, so players don’t get ideas about running a business instead of adventuring. But not a big deal.
Treasure – Should probably be restricted from the players. It’s way cooler to discover a fancy magic item if you don’t know that item exists before you find it. The price list of gems and art might need to be restricted as well to prevent players from bypassing appraisals, if that’s something you’re doing in your game.
Variant rules – definitely should be restricted, if only to keep the players from trying to “well akshually” the gm about some variant rule or other that the gm might not be using. Again I don’t think it’s game breaking.
Custom stuff building rules – should probably be restricted? But unlike the others “player wanting to build a custom thing” is not a problem I’ve ever run into except for entire homebrew classes, which aren’t in the DMG guidance anyway.
So I think that roughly supports my belief but I don’t think it’s all that strong of a support.
Personally, I think players shouldn’t even read the player’s handbook.
So, no splitting of information. Only one side (and one book) —the “GM’s handbook”.
Hear hear!
I think their are actually two questions here – “Should players be allowed to read the DMG?” and “Is it worth players reading the DMG?”.
I think that there is no reason players should be banned from reading more detailed rules and processes of the game, but they do not need them to play. This is why the DMG exists as a seperate book.
Anything related to the game world should be off limits however. This includes modules monsters, and I would go as far as to say magic items and possibly even spells. In the old red BECMI basic books you got spells up to level 3 in the players guide (the basic players manual only covered levels 1-3), but the DMG gave you higher level spells for your baddies. This helped preserve a sense of wonder.
Of course you can’t enforce this on grown ups anyway and experienced players will absorb a lot of this detail over time in any event.
I don’t think I want my players reading the DMG.
I especially don’t want them reading the Treasure chapter. A magic item or other doodad should come as a delightful surprise. And comparison is the enemy of delight; I never want a player to think, “Oh well, a Horn of Silent Alarm is all very well, but I really would rather have had Boots of Elvenkind.”
I also don’t want players reading the Creating Adventures chapter. I want them thinking about the fiction, not about how many XPs they should expect in an adventuring day, or why I might issue an XP reward that’s different from what they read in the DMG.
I’m firmly in the camp that knowledge of scenarios and challenges shouldn’t be available to players: no dungeon maps, no NPC secrets, and for me, that extends to monster stat blocks, traps, and hazards. So, I would explicitly forbid my players from reading the Monster Manual, the section about traps, and maybe some of the stuff about wilderness other planes if those includes hazards and their solutions. But I was leafing through my DMG, and I don’t see much else that would cause my game problems if a player knew it. I see plenty of material that I would consider spoilers, like magic items, details of the setting, or tables the GM might use to make spells or classes or whatever. So, I would discourage players from reading that if they don’t want to spoil themselves, and I expect that to be most players. But I know some people who like to read the end of a novel first so they know what to expect. People be weird sometimes, and if that’s how they enjoy content, it’s not a problem for me. TL;DR: scenarios and their ingredients are the only thing I would explicitly forbid players from reading; I would just slap a spoiler tag on the rest and let the player decide.
I know how a sunset/sunrise/rainbow/X is created (from science). It doesn’t stop the awe I feel when seeing one.
The argument that “players shouldn’t know” also implies players are only allowed to play X once and there is no variation in DM gameplay. Much like the sunset/sunrise/rainbow/X, it is the specifics of any of those that create the awe. Sure, my notes etc, protect those but even then… if they know and I spin out a gameplay experience who cares that they knew? Published basics (aka the “science” behind the world)? Why not? That isn’t what creates the gameplay experience. I know what causes most events, but I still stop to watch them.
Oh, and as for the divide? In our world that is science. Not impossible to know, it just takes investment, say about the “cost” (time and materials?) of a DM Guide… more or less.
On a personal level, I think players should read the DMG. Not only does it give them a better picture to how certain mechanics typically work (traps, magic items, etc.), but it also empowers them to be able to make educated decisions on how they want to play the game. While anyone can say “what do you want your character to do?”, a lot of people don’t know what their character can “mechanically” do. It may not be necessary for players to play the game, but reading the DMG can be extremely helpful to allow players to know what their actions could be capable of doing.