D&D 5E A player's responsibility with regard to the rules

[Eltab]

I started in my Tiamat group as the player who looked up the rules when there was a question about how to proceed or what was supposed to be done ("What does Fireball do?").
I offered the results of my investigation, not beating the DM (or players) over the head with their ignorance or mistaken ideas.

With that background, of course I think rules knowledge should be high.

But the group was also the FLGS's "Intro to D&D" effort, so when I DM'ed I had people with no idea whatsoever sitting down to play a session.

There are different classes: this list is not exhaustive
- "regulars" (who should know more and be able to help people who know less)
- "visitors" (who need know little but should be good sports)
- And of course you DO need somebody who is an expert or a look-it-up kind of guy, who is polite about it.

 

[Not a Hobbit]

I'll keep it short: my players don't need to know the rules. I know the rules.

I know what's in the books. I know what's on your character sheets. All of it. You just tell me what you want to do, I'll let you know how we resolve that together.

I agree with this to a point. I don't mind a player saying "I'd like to jump onto the monster's back and stab him in the back of the head". I would say "Okay, roll an acrobatics or athletics roll to jump onto his back." But if, after the 50th session, the player's next statement is "How do I do that?" then I think that that is being disrespectful to the other players (and me) at the table.

Once played a game with a new guy, he was playing a fighter. Even after the fifth or sixth combat, he would roll a d20 for an attack, and then sit and look around, literally expecting someone else to figure out his "to hit" score. First time, fine. Second time, I'd point it out on his character sheet. Fifth time, you should probably know it by now.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I'll keep it short: my players don't need to know the rules. I know the rules.

I don't think this should be required to play 5e. But I do think it is to be admired. If the DM has true rules mastery, and the trust of the players, the game goes much more smoothly.

 

[robus]

I'll keep it short: my players don't need to know the rules. I know the rules.

I know what's in the books. I know what's on your character sheets. All of it. You just tell me what you want to do, I'll let you know how we resolve that together. I don't care if it's the 1st session or the 50th, I've got you covered. That's my job, at least as I see it. What my players might pick up along the way is up to them. Just don't be an asshat at my table and we're all good.

Now that's just my style of DMing, I'm sure others require their players to know a lot more than I do and that's all good. I read the rulebooks for fun, so my players don't have to, unless they want to.

This seems great, but aren't many player options connected to the rules? Meaning if they don't know the rules they won't be able to access many of their options. For example, when a spellcaster wants to amplify a spell by using a higher level spell slot?

How do they communicate that to you if they don't know the rules for spellcasting?

Player:"I cast the missile thing spell! But with *more* missiles?!"
DM: "How many more?"
Player: "I dunno how many can I cast?"
DM: "Depends on which spell slot you want to use?"
Player: "What's a spell slot...??!!"
DM: "...."

OK I turned it into a joke at the end - but seriously it must get a bit tedious if the players don't shoulder some of the burden?

 

[robus]

I don't think this should be required to play 5e. But I do think it is to be admired. If the DM has true rules mastery, and the trust of the players, the game goes much more smoothly.

I think the DM definitely]should know the rules, but I think gameplay is much more enhanced when the players know their options. And a decent number of those options are governed by rules (bonus action, spell slot usage, etc etc). So it is impossible (IMHO) for a player to fully enjoy the game without some grasp of rules that apply to their taking actions and what is offered by resting for example.

Let's not take all agency away from the players.

 

[iserith]

This seems great, but aren't many player options connected to the rules? Meaning if they don't know the rules they won't be able to access many of their options. For example, when a spellcaster wants to amplify a spell by using a higher level spell slot?

How do they communicate that to you if they don't know the rules for spellcasting?

I think that goes back to players wanting to be more effective, in general. If they want to get good, they're going to have to learn. And I'm sure the other players will help since it's a team game. In my view, the role of the DM in this regard is to just keep making solid challenges where getting more effective is a valuable goal.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, I get that. You want the players to know about, and operate within, what is described in the PHB. But let us remember that 5e is the first time that the complete playing rules have been included in the PHB.

PHs started getting thicker and DMGs thinner with 2e. The 3e PH (and SRD) had prettymuch all the rules you needed to actually play, just not the magic items and wealth/level you needed for beyond-first-level builds. 5e still has fairly complete rules in the PH/SRD, though it has a lot of optional ones in the DMG, and the DM can keep players in the dark almost as effectively as the AD&D DM, by keeping resolution behind the screen and making frequent rulings rather than sticking to the rules.

Previously, right back to AD&D, the rules were in the DMG and players weren't allowed to read them.

In theory. In reality, lots of DMs also played at times, and some players even went ahead and read the DMG in spite of never having DM'd! (The bounders!)
So, in practice, old-school D&D wasn't just an accumulation of 'player skill,' but a sort of knowledge (today we might say system-mastery, but it could quickly leave behind the published system) arms-race between DMs & players. DMs had to stay ahead of their players to maintain the edge that 5e just plain hands us as "DM Empowerment."

I'm not sure how knowing the rules constrains the players' actions, unless by that you mean that asking the players to know the rules is a constraint outside of play.

The idea is that if the rules give your character many options (a long list of spells, for instance, from which you choose a fraction of them that you know, from which you choose a fraction of those that you prepare, from which you choose one each round to cast), you will primarily focus on choosing the best option from the list ("hmm... monsters in a group... fireball or sleep?") while, if you have only one option clearly defined in the rules, or don't even know what options the rules allow, you will be free to focus on a novel solution ("hmm... monsters in a group... I have no idea what I can do, I'll ..er... hide? run away? offer to sell out my party in exchange for my life?").

Whether knowing the ten actions has a place on such a list is an arguable point. Perhaps you'd remove it from the list. But do you think such a list itself is completely invalid?

It can be a valuable learning tool, if that's the goal. One thing I'd consider is the attitude of the new players. Are they trying out D&D to see if they like it? Or are they committed to really exploring it? In the latter case, reading the books, having 'cheat sheets' available, going over options in play - and playing the rules close to 'standard' (probably AL, as they might move on to that) - could be helpful, because they want to learn. In the former case, focusing on the experience of a TTRPG, and making that as positive an experience as possible, would be the way to go, IMHO.

 

[Waterbizkit]

I suppose I need to clarify a bit, and that's completely my fault because of how emphatically I made my original statement. There's definitely a give and take between me and the players and while I'd obviously prefer not to have to explain "this is how you make an attack" to someone who's been playing their fighter for five levels, I just don't get too worked up about it either if it does happen.

I sort of look at myself as a bit of a "teaching" DM. My innate interest in the rules and readiness to absorb them all like a sponge also makes me keen to share that knowledge without having my players go digging through the rules on their own. If they want to that's great, and I will encourage it even, but I don't necessarily expect it and I don't get myself bent out of shape if it doesn't happen.

It's a bit difficult to explain I guess, with new players or even vets that might just be new to a particular edition, I start out by working very closely with them not just during character creation, but also through the first few sessions. I even regularly run tutorial style one-offs prior to the actual campaign to go over basic mechanics with the players, even going so far as to tailor those one-offs to force the player to interact with different parts of the character sheet or the characters abilities so they at least having something to call back to when it comes up in actual play.

As far as how I'd approach the various situations that could come up from a players lack of knowledge, it's too situation-specific for me to give a better answer than: I'm here to help and will always do so, including reminding players of what their characters are capable of should they forget... as long as I can do so without over-influencing their actions. It's a hard line to walk, but I like to think I do ok.

I'll try and come up with a quick example or two, but these might be pretty piss poor. Say I've got a player playing a rogue and the character is in melee with an enemy and the player says something like "I don't want to be standing next to this orc when he starts swinging, I'm going to run and get behind the paladin." Now, the player never says they disengage, but if they haven't used their bonus action yet that turn? Well, chances are I'll say something like "Ok, you can run from the orc, but if you don't use cunning action to disengage he's getting a swing at you." I'll probably even point to the ability on their sheet. Now believe me, part of me would love to see the rogue eat an OA and learn the hard way, use the stick as it were, but it's just not my style.

To use the spell slot example, or one like it, say the player says something like "I'd really like to cast magic missle, but I'm out of 1st level spell slots." Chances are I'd point out that perhaps they still have other slots available to "up-cast" the spell. A more likely scenario, given the character sheets I have my players use, would be "I see here in my spell list it says something about more missles per higher spell slot used, what's that about?" And I'd explain it to them. For reference by the by I have my players use the printer friendly version of MPMB's character sheet, complete with generated spell lists for the characters who need them, it's excellent for knowing what a spell does or knowing exactly where to reference it if you need to.

I guess in the end I like teaching players and so for me the questions never really get old. I mean, it helps that no one in my groups exactly qualifies as special needs... so between my teacher-like approach, quality character sheets that I show them how to reference, and never getting tired of quesrions... My players seem to grasp the basics pretty well and fairly quickly. So while my original statement might have had a dash of hyperbole in it, I really am that keen to teach and patient with my players that I wouldn't get too worked up if they were asking basic questions at a point most might not.

Anyway, that's my ramble. There's no genuinely wrong way to do this, so even if people hold different expectations than I do it's very much a "to each their own" sort of thing. I'm just pretty laid back about it all... though I'm no carebear DM either, my statements in other threads about killing characters will stand for themselves on that subject.