Forked Thread: Should players know the rules?

[Reynard]

Forked from: DMs - No one cares how long you worked (was: Rant -- GM Control...)

As far as "extreme casual" players go, I've never been a fan of the idea that players must know all the rules pertaining to their PC. I see rules as being a GM's aid to help him in adjudicating interaction between the PCs and the world. Also, in recent years games have become much more complicated; mastering 3e or 4e D&D is a real effort. I prefer games with less buy-in required.

While I agree that it requires effort to gain rules mastery as a player, I also think that players should be expected to at least know the rules relative to their character. If a player chooses a fighter in 3E, for example, it is incumbent on that player to know how 3E combat works, what his options are and so on. Players that want to be spellcasters should know what they are getting in to (as spells tend to be more complex in application).

Players that don't bother to learn even the basic rules of their character slow the game down, weaken the party as a whole and in general make the game less fun for everyone at the table. in addition, the DM is put in the unenviable position of having to decide whether to coddle the lazy player, or give him/her special treatment.

What do you think?

 

[Nikosandros]

What do you think?

Well, I guess that it depends somewhat on the game being played.

But with detailed, tactical games like 3e and 4e, my answer is an empathic yes. Players do have a responsibility of having reasonable knowledge of the rules... especially as they pertain to their characters.

 

[Phaezen]

I would at the minimum expect my players to know how thier character works, what thier abilities do and have know the basic combat structure. Basically be able to handle the character side of the game so I can concentrate on the dm side of things (plot, npc and monster abilities). I expect myself to have a complete handle on the combat rules so I can handle any non-standard things characters want to do.

Phaezen

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I think the player's should know the rules - basic combat and movement, and anything pertaining to what is on that character's character sheet. If someone doesn't want to put that make basic effort into the game, I don't know if I would want them in my game.

But then I play with people that have been gaming for 10 years or more.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Players that don't bother to learn even the basic rules of their character slow the game down, weaken the party as a whole and in general make the game less fun for everyone at the table. in addition, the DM is put in the unenviable position of having to decide whether to coddle the lazy player, or give him/her special treatment.

What do you think?

I think it's easy to look at this from a "hard-core gamer" perspective. The Gaming Buddy (as defined by Robin Laws) often doesn't learn the full rules. I'm okay with that. When my wife wants to play (I wish it were more often), she sits down with her character and says "I want to kill things. What do I roll." We tell her. She has a straight-forward character to minimize the rules questions. I have other such folks in other games that I've DMed/been in too. These people still bring something to the table. It's a question of whether you want to force them to learn rules or not.

I think if you have someone who tries to learn the rules and does so imperfectly, that's irritating. Players who try to sit there and warp, twist and reinterpret them for a momentary advantage? Also more of a problem IMO.

 

[Woas]

Although I think it is good for the people at the table to understand the basic fundamental of a system, example: d20 system requires you to (roll d20 ± modifiers > DC), fanatical knowledge of the rules (I guess you could call it Rules Lawyering) or knowledge above just "knowing it's there" (example: knowing grapple is possible, but not worrying about the details) seems in my experience to harm the game more than allowing the GM/DM/Story Teller/Referee to just do their job an arbitrate the game, even if they need to 'coddle the lazy player'.
I feel that there is a reason role-playing games have ONE gamemaster/refree and several players. The more the players act like a GM the worse off the game.

 

[malraux]

My experience playing 4e is that its somewhere between difficult and impossible for the DM to know how the PCs work (ie what powers they have), much less know the optimum one for the moment. So if the player doesn't know the rules around his character, no-one does.

 

[Umbran]

I don't necessarily expect a player to know all the rules for their character at the start, but I do expect them to learn those rules. Once you've played a character for a level or so, you've probably got the basics down pretty solidly, and from there the changes are incremental, and easy to pick up.

 

[S'mon]

While I agree that it requires effort to gain rules mastery as a player, I also think that players should be expected to at least know the rules relative to their character. If a player chooses a fighter in 3E, for example, it is incumbent on that player to know how 3E combat works, what his options are and so on. Players that want to be spellcasters should know what they are getting in to (as spells tend to be more complex in application).

Players that don't bother to learn even the basic rules of their character slow the game down, weaken the party as a whole and in general make the game less fun for everyone at the table. in addition, the DM is put in the unenviable position of having to decide whether to coddle the lazy player, or give him/her special treatment.

What do you think?

I think 3e and 4e are designed that way, to require rules knowledge by the player, but I don't like this design decision. I prefer the OD&D approach (followed in eg C&C) where a player can simply say "I do X" acting as their character would act, without need for any rules knowledge, and the GM can adjudicate it.

In my current tabletop 3e group, some of the best/most fun players are the ones least interested in the rules about square counting, attacks of opportunity, optimal feat choice, etc. I dislike that the game expects them to be invested in stuff that has no relation to the game world (eg "no facing", *ugh*). I understand 4e is even worse that way.

 

[Reynard]

Although I think it is good for the people at the table to understand the basic fundamental of a system, example: d20 system requires you to (roll d20 ± modifiers > DC), fanatical knowledge of the rules (I guess you could call it Rules Lawyering) or knowledge above just "knowing it's there" (example: knowing grapple is possible, but not worrying about the details) seems in my experience to harm the game more than allowing the GM/DM/Story Teller/Referee to just do their job an arbitrate the game, even if they need to 'coddle the lazy player'.
I feel that there is a reason role-playing games have ONE gamemaster/refree and several players. The more the players act like a GM the worse off the game.

I think there's a world of difference between a knowledgable player and a rules lawyer. I also don't think the two are necessarily linked -- i think we've all been in games with "rules lawyers" that didn't actually know the rules, and been in games with very rules proficient players that didn't act at all like a rules lawyer.