Forked Thread: Should players know the rules?

[steenan]

IMO, it depends on the system. The more tactical it is in character creation or in play (e.g. making a resonable, but mechanically suboptimal decision may lower the enjoyment), the more important is rule knowledge. Also, players should know the rules in games that have exotic or complicated mechanics, because otherwise play may become very slow.

In non-tactical games a brief knowledge of rules is enough. In non-tactical games with simple rolls and numbers it is possible to have a very good session with people who have never seen the rules before.

 

[Jack99]

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 agree 100%. In my games, my players have a saying: "That will teach you". It is usually employed when someone gets horribly hurt/killed by the DM (me) because they didn't know a rule. There is no coddling from my part, and luckily my players do not want any either.

 

[delericho]

In general, players should know the rules well enough not to be burden to the rest of the group. Obviously, this doesn't mean that all (or any) players are required to have perfect system mastery, nor does it mean they should never have to look something up. And, of course, new players get cut some slack, for a while.

But if a player, after having played for several sessions, still needs to be constantly reminded which dice they need to roll for attack rolls or skill checks, or whatever, then that's a problem.

Additionally, the more system mastery the player wants to apply, the better he needs to know the rules. Again, my guideline is 'don't be a burden to the party'. So, if he wants to maximise his Power Attack output every time, he needs to have the numbers to hand and ready to go - he can't bring the game crashing to a halt for his every attack while he runs the numbers.

 

[arscott]

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.

Now, are your 'square counting, attacks of opportunity, optimal feat choice' players your less favorite players in addition to their emphasis on rules mastery? Or simply because of it?

Because, like you said, the game expects them to be invested in it (And though it's hidden, it expects rogues and fighters to be much more invested in that aspect of the rules than spellcasters are. Never have I been more frustrated as a player than by GMs who get angry when Rogues spend a few extra seconds counting squares or Fighters spend a few extra seconds on an AoO, but are perfectly content to let a spellcaster spend a minute flipping through the PHB deciding which spell to cast.)

 

[Arnwyn]

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?

Pretty much what you said.

I expect my players to know the PHB, front and back. I don't ask them to know anything else, but I do expect them to know the PHB (not necessarily the other classes that they're not playing, but everything else). They don't necessarily need to know the rule(s) by heart, but at the very least they need to know where to find it.

New players get a break for a "reasonable" amount of time, but I expect them to eventually know the PHB if they are to be long-term players.

 

[Henry]

Pretty much what you said.

I expect my players to know the PHB, front and back. I don't ask them to know anything else, but I do expect them to know the PHB (not necessarily the other classes that they're not playing, but everything else). They don't necessarily need to know the rule(s) by heart, but at the very least they need to know where to find it.

I don't expect them to know quite that much, but at the least the core mechanic and the "feel" of the rules (such as whether higher is generally better, etc). I also prefer it if they have their DAMN BONUSES WRITTEN OUT AHEAD OF TIME so that they don't recalculate their totals from scratch every time. In 4E, if you have a +3 from your strength, a +2 from your weapon, and a +2 from all your feats, class features, etc. then writing a "+7" on that character sheet somewhere is really considered prudent, instead of:

...I rolled a 14, so that's a +3 from strength, and a +2 for my mace, and... lessee, that's a +1 for 'fighter's prowess', and a +1 for 'mace training', so.... +3 +2 +1 +1.... 21, right?

and then 2 minutes later...


...I rolled a 9, so... +3 from strength, and what's the mace again? +2? +2 for my mace, and +1 for 'fighter's prowess', and +1 for 'mace training', so.... +3 +2 +1 +1.... 16!

(facepalm)

I've had a fighter player do that, round after round, years ago, and it drove me batty, even after taking him aside and writing it out for him. I think he did it because it drove me batty.

 

[Rel]

I've had a fighter player do that, round after round, years ago, and it drove me batty, even after taking him aside and writing it out for him. I think he did it because it drove me batty.

I said I was sorry!

 

[Lanefan]

I also prefer it if they have their DAMN BONUSES WRITTEN OUT AHEAD OF TIME so that they don't recalculate their totals from scratch every time. In 4E, if you have a +3 from your strength, a +2 from your weapon, and a +2 from all your feats, class features, etc. then writing a "+7" on that character sheet somewhere is really considered prudent...

I used to do this when I played 3e...and then realized how pointless it was. Rare indeed would be the combat where my *actual* bonus was the same as the base bonus written on my sheet...between buffs, ability drains, changing weapons, bless/bane effects, and other sundry variable gype I'd still have to add it up every frickin' time anyway. And then, once I'd figured it out, it would all change before my next attack sequence. Bah!

This is starting to remind me why I don't play 3e anymore...

Lanefan

 

[Ourph]

Heck, they arguably aren’t “games” at all.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I just don't get.

If it weren't a game, it wouldn't have rules. If there were no rules, then there wouldn't be rulebooks.

There are rulebooks... full of rules... which makes it pretty obvious we're all playing a game. If someone plans on playing the game on a regular basis, it would behoove them to maybe glance at those rules and become familiar with them at some point.

Giving a newbie a break as he learns the rules during the game is one thing, but I don't understand anyone who simply refuses (after several sessions) to make an effort to understand the basic principles that govern the game he's attempting to participate in.

 

[S'mon]

Now, are your 'square counting, attacks of opportunity, optimal feat choice' players your less favorite players in addition to their emphasis on rules mastery? Or simply because of it?

No, some of my best players are the ones who know the rules well. You twisted my words into something I didn't say. Players can be good players - fun to GM for - whether they like to focus on rules mastery or not. 3e is structured to expect players to focus on the rules, though.