Forked Thread: Should players know the rules?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

i think the players should know, or at the very least be learning the rules nessisary to run thier own characters. It just bogs everything down if they don't.

Of course on the other hand i play in a game regularly were the DM only has a very basic understanding of the rules and no desire to refine his understanding. That would obviously make things next to impossible if some or all of the players did noy have good grasps on the rules. Lucky for us most of us do, and are able to support the DM and keep things moving.

 

[Oni]

I think it is courteous to your fellow players to put enough effort into learning the basics of the game you're playing that you don't significantly slow things down or otherwise detract from the game in a regular fashion.

 

[Woas]

Oh without a doubt. There are plenty of people who normally sit at the table as the regular GM and then can switch to being a player and be patience and not 'interfere'. The term I was believe now after giving more thought is, "Rules Worrying".
I feel, and it has been my experience that the more a player knows about the nitty-gritty of how the rules interact, the more they are going to lament over 'what's the absolute BEST rule I can invoke so that I can do the right action, right now' and running the different scenarios, as if they were their own GM, in their head. Furthermore it is this type of rules worrying that lends one player (the worrier) to start interupting other player's turns to enlighten them on how their action is sub-optimal, and here are a bunch of rules to prove it and here are some more rules that you should look into, etc. It is that level of rules knowledge that I feel is one of the bigger disruptions to play and having fun.

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.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

There's no need for a player at my table to know the rules (in fact, sometimes players who don't know the rules come up with more interesting and creative actions), but I don't mind if he does.

As others have noted, the system probably matters in this question. I'm running original D&D. If I were running a system with more emphasis on tactical rules and codified rules options or constraints, my answer might be different.

 

[RFisher]

I don’t think players should need to know the rules.

That said, I prefer games with rules simple enough that everyone at the table can understand them without much effort. Still, it’s up to each player whether they bother to or not.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

If people can learn the rules to multiple games on board/card game night, then they can certainly learn a single set of rules for RPG night. If they can't, then the rules are too complex. If they won't, then they shouldn't be playing.

Seriously, you can't play a game you don't know (and are unable/unwilling to learn) the rules too. Full stop. Why is this even a question?

 

[Treebore]

If they have it on their characters sheet (feat/power/spell) they should no what it entails. If its a general action, like Grapple, Overbear, etc... I can handle it.

 

[Kinneus]

Yes, in 4e or 3xe, I think it's reasonable to assume that the players know the game. The only exception to this, of course, is with new players learning the game. But even then, after a few encounters, they start to get the hang of it. Until they get drunk, anyways. And then the game becomes fun for completely different reasons.

 

[Dragongrief]

I believe that all of the players should have a strong grasp of the basics of the system - d20 + modifiers = success or failure - and be able to read their spells/powers/whatever.

Do I care whether they have their abilities memorized? No. That's what note cards are for.

Do I think they should know all the rules pertaining to a random action they might use? No. That's what the DM and the rulebooks are for.

What I don't want to hear at the table is (barring the New Player Clause):

Player: I use my "Mega Attack Zero" on the kobold.
DM: Okay, go ahead.
Player: What do I roll?

That just gets irritating and, IMO, shows a lack of interest in the game.

 

[Rel]

I'm always interested in how perceptions vary. Personally I picked to run 4e as my next campaign in large part because it requires less rules mastery from players who aren't into that (I'd say that 3 of my 4 players are not all that into rules mastery). My wife is playing a Cleric and she is a smart woman but a pretty casual gamer. She was able to fairly easily grasp the powers and feats available to her and select choices that she considered to capture the flavor she wanted while still being fairly good choices (in terms of optimizing) for her stats.

I contrast this with 3.5 (a system that I very much like despite the fact that I'm not running it anymore) where she would have never considered playing a Cleric. It was simply too much work in terms of system mastery to have to become familiar with the large number of spells each level that were available to a Cleric and then have to choose which ones would be good choices for each adventuring day. This issue becomes compounded considerably if you allow spells from the various "splatbooks".

So my answer to the OP is that I feel it is in the player's interest to know the rules for their character and those who do so will tend to perform better from a power standpoint than those who don't. But I'm starting to favor systems that require much less rules mastery because that isn't something my group enjoys as a whole. I personally enjoy browsing through RPG rule books and finding little tidbits therein. But this is not a trait shared by most of the people I game with.

That's probably why I tend to GM. It's also why when I'm a player that my characters ownzorz.