"No rules referencing during play". Reasonable, or authoritarian?

[karlindel]

I think an absolute rule is a bit much. I also think that a better rule is one more focused on the actual problem, rather than the perceived one. A more focused rule will also lead to less concern over what counts as "rules referencing". Players referencing the rules is not a problem if the referencing occurs during other people's turns and they are ready to go on their own turn.

The actual problem seems to be people looking up details of their spells after their turn starts instead of having their spells ready. It might also be a problem if people look up the rules when it's their turn or try to hold up the game until they can get the rule to cite.

I think rules such as:
You must have the text of any spell you cast (and any monsters you summon, animal companions you have, etc.) out and ready to be read at the start of your turn.
You must have printed copies of your commonly used spells/rules (spells if you're a caster, grapple/disarm/bull rush if your character is built for them, turn undead if you're a cleric, etc.) as part of your character sheet.
If you are unsure of a rule that will affect your action, either look it up before your turn so that you have it ready, or make do without it.
If you are performing an action that might require the GM to look up the rules, keep the rule out and open, do not just read it yourself and then close the book before your turn.

 

[howandwhy99]

This is something of a very old school method of roleplaying. Where the rules were not really rules, but relationships to be experienced by the players, at some point recognized, and then used to their advantage to accomplish their goals, accomplishments which hopefully gained them points for roleplaying successfully.

In those kinds of games knowing the rules behind the screen would be tantamount to cheating, like reading a riddle or a test before being challenged by them. In these games most "rules", like the MM, DMG, modules, the game setting, etc., are the guidelines used in an elaborate guessing game, so even a perusal by the players is an act of cheating.

In more modern games, whether they be complicated simulations in front of a screen or rules for unscripted storytelling, the game rules are actually that: rules. And not being able to reference them would be as disingenuous as not being able to reference card game rules or boardgame rules as you play those games. Imagine playing a sport without knowing the rules and expecting it to somehow "work". It makes no sense.

 

[Hussar]

This is something of a very old school method of roleplaying. Where the rules were not really rules, but relationships to be experienced by the players, at some point recognized, and then used to their advantage to accomplish their goals, accomplishments which hopefully gained them points for roleplaying successfully.

In those kinds of games knowing the rules behind the screen would be tantamount to cheating, like reading a riddle or a test before being challenged by them. In these games most "rules", like the MM, DMG, modules, the game setting, etc., are the guidelines used in an elaborate guessing game, so even a perusal by the players is an act of cheating.

In more modern games, whether they be complicated simulations in front of a screen or rules for unscripted storytelling, the game rules are actually that: rules. And not being able to reference them would be as disingenuous as not being able to reference card game rules or boardgame rules as you play those games. Imagine playing a sport without knowing the rules and expecting it to somehow "work". It makes no sense.

See, I don't get this. I really, really don't get this.

Take the 1e shield rules. They're pretty clear, if clunky. How are they not a rule?

Yeah, yeah, rule 0 and all that, but, come on. The books are full of RULES. Yes, you can change those rules. That's fine. But that doesn't make them not-rules, it just means that the rules at a particular table can be flexible. That hasn't changed at all from day 1.

But the idea that if I know that a small shield only works against two opponents and a large shield works against three is somehow cheating is ridiculous.

 

[Shades of Green]

It partly depends on what system you're using. Using OD&D or B/X for example, a rules lookup might take 15 seconds. Using 3E where you've got multi-paragraph treatments and numerous hard-coded options... that could be a pain.

Quoted for truth. When I played 3.0E, I had to look into the books sveral times each session. Now that I play BFRPG, I hardly find the need to do so. Generally speaking, simpler games with lighter rules allow the DM/GM and the more experienced players to learn the most common rules by heart and thus need the book mainly for chargen, prep and a few complex rules; more complex systems usually need more referencing during the game.

 

[fanboy2000]

Well Simon, I sugest that for you're situation, Cadfan has it right: your players need more detailed character sheets. With spells, the save DCs (or attack bonuses) are imparitive, as is range, They don't necessaryly need a full-on spell description/power card but you every player should have the numbers written down so that they can refer them when needed.

RPG character sheets is typically a good resource for detailed character sheets. but I'm a big fan of writing out everything long hand too. That way, you know how the information is organized and a better idea of what it all means. Not that I always follow this advice, but it's still good.

 

[howandwhy99]

See, I don't get this. I really, really don't get this.

Take the 1e shield rules. They're pretty clear, if clunky. How are they not a rule?

Yeah, yeah, rule 0 and all that, but, come on. The books are full of RULES. Yes, you can change those rules. That's fine. But that doesn't make them not-rules, it just means that the rules at a particular table can be flexible. That hasn't changed at all from day 1.

But the idea that if I know that a small shield only works against two opponents and a large shield works against three is somehow cheating is ridiculous.

Reread the old Dungeonmaster's Guide. Those are not the rules of the game, those are the guidelines for the DM. The only actual game rules are for the players to attempt to roleplay as well as possible and for the DM to answer honestly back based upon their own knowledge and their referencing of the guidelines. Think of it like using an encyclopedia in a traditional guessing game except those guidelines are dynamic because the guessing game is an RPG.

Also, just like in a traditional guessing game you can neither change what is in the encyclopedia nor the object being guessed at once the game begins.

Rule Zero is not a game rule. I consider it detrimental to any kind of game and to gaming in general.

 

[Vartan]

I wouldn't ban lookups altogether, or even use a timer, but if things get out of hand then it's up to the DM to make a ruling so the game keeps moving. As a DM I'm not above sawing the baby in half: make a call that favors a player's imagination and proactive thinking, even if it gets under the rules lawyer's skin, and then make sure that the proactive player gets the rule straight before he tries that move again.

Of course, in a perfect world the DM would know more about the rules than anybody at the table, but this isn't a perfect world, and that's why the DM is charged with makings judgment calls.

It helps when everyone consistently works to improve their rules knowledge, at least with regards to their character's abilities, but I'll stay away from that subject for now because it might send me into a ranting fit

 

[Carpe DM]

I'm struck that this problem occurs in every game, and everyone has a solution, but no solution is particularly good.

This means either that (1) D&D players are not creative and inventive (which hypothesis I reject out of hand); or (2) that this is not a problem that can be solved with any one "perfect" solution.

I think (2) is right. No amount of procedural shenanigans will make this problem go away. (For what it's worth, my personal rule as a player--when I rarely play rather than GM--is that if the GM makes a mistake that seriously affects the story, I look up the rule quietly, then raise the point once, when I have the book open.)

Rather, this is a function of processor speeds. The players can parallel process, and the GM is stuck with a single processor. This means the players can one-way ratchet the rules by correcting errors that cut against them, while remaining silent on errors that benefit them.

(Again, one might try correct this procedurally. My personal rule is that I point out one rules error that screws me for every rules error I point out that helps me. YMMV.)

But all of these machinations are unhelpful. I think relationships are more important than rules. Your players need to understand that if they are going to do rules lookup, it needs to help the game. If they are cutting in on the GM's processing time, they're not helping. If they're easing the GM's processing time, they are helping. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, this is a description of the two roles that rules-lawyering can play in a game.

Carpe

 

[Hussar]

Reread the old Dungeonmaster's Guide. Those are not the rules of the game, those are the guidelines for the DM. The only actual game rules are for the players to attempt to roleplay as well as possible and for the DM to answer honestly back based upon their own knowledge and their referencing of the guidelines. Think of it like using an encyclopedia in a traditional guessing game except those guidelines are dynamic because the guessing game is an RPG.

Also, just like in a traditional guessing game you can neither change what is in the encyclopedia nor the object being guessed at once the game begins.

Rule Zero is not a game rule. I consider it detrimental to any kind of game and to gaming in general.

Without Rule Zero, which is the rule that states that all the rules in the books are "guidelines", all those guidelines suddenly become rules. You can't have it both ways.

See, playing "mother may I" is not my idea of a fun game. When the books say, "A fireball expands to fill the volume", that's a rule to me. If you want to change that, feel free, but, please, let me know beforehand. The rules are there so everyone, the DM and the players are on the same page and can make informed decisions about actions to take in game.

DM: The wizard dumps a fireball on you!
Player: Well, at least he's going to go with me.
DM: Oh, sorry, no, that's not a rule, just a guideline, so, his fireballs don't expand.

Now, if fireballs don't expand becomes the standard in that game, it's a rule. House rule, true, but still a rule. It's codified and known to everyone at the table.

While I realize that some people think 1e was an exercise in Calvinball, I've found that most people think that's an example of very poor DMing.

 

[babomb]

I think having a "no looking at rules" rule is going a bit overboard.

If it's a problem in your group:
1) Talk to them about it.
2) Encourage the use of spell cards and/or character sheets with lots of info. For example, I usually write a summary of my feats next to their names. Next the spot for saves, I write conditional modifiers ("+2 vs. poison"), etc. If there's not enough room for the details, at least write page numbers. Thus, most of the time, I don't require a book for rules lookups, and if I do, I can find the rule quickly.
3) If the player doesn't know the relevant details of the spell, he's delaying until he looks it up. Move on to the next person.