Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="40below" data-source="post: 7161973" data-attributes="member: 6878241">Hm, that's not what I said. I'm interested in the idea of what rules a player who herself wants to facilitate smoother play (which benefits everyone at the table) should learn, and what priorities there might be with regard to which rules are more important. I don't think I mentioned anything as a requirement (though others may have).And I tried to unpack, a little, the specific benefits of players knowing certain rules. 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 ideal of the DM presenting the world to which the players react in a rules-agnostic way is a fine one. While I think it can have some shortcomings in its pure form, it's a fine ideal, and one that's in play to some extent at all gaming tables. But discussing an ideal set of rules a hypothetical well-intentioned-but-lazy player should learn seems to me like a worthwhile exercise.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? Don't you have some rules and mechanics that, really, you expect the players to know, like how to make an attribute check, or how to calculate damage?Maybe not. As I've said, I get that perspective, and I'm not saying it's wrong. In fact, I'd argue that it's right as a foundation in general. For some, maybe it's sufficient unto itself. Others, obviously, think the game can be better with rules-knowledgeable players, and I basically asked what rules knowledge was worth prioritizing.</blockquote>

Verification