D&D 5E Please understand your spells

[Ovinomancer]

In what way, exactly, are reading speed and aptitude in retaining information inherently tied to whether or not you are being respectful?

If a player needing a few minutes to make sure they are doing the thing they actually want to do, likely in their (however long it might be) process of trying to "get" this character they enjoy (or at the very east aim to enjoy through "getting it down") is disrespectful... does that mean that mean that I am the most respectful player present because I have been a DM so frequently for so long that I don't even need to check the book for most monster stats?

It's disrespectful if you continue to hold up play and make others wait on you week over week because you can't be bothered to either learn the important bits of your character or make a useful cheat sheet (or even ask for help). If you continue to slow play every time due to lack of preparation, that shows a general disrespect for the time of others playing. This directly addresses the social contract of group games -- you respect others making time to play out of their schedules by 1) showing up on time ready to play, b) doing a bare modicum of prep to understand the rules as they apply to your character (I don't expect anything else), and iii) don't be a (Wheaton's Rule).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's disrespectful if you continue to hold up play and make others wait on you week over week because you can't be bothered to either learn the important bits of your character or make a useful cheat sheet (or even ask for help).

So... putting in effort (all that reading the book), but not seeing results as fast as some other person would prefer, and not using a method to learn that another person suggests that might not even actually be helpful to you because of the way you learn, is disrespectful?

At what point does "Jim's really interested in becoming good at playing a wizard, but is having some difficulty achieving that goal," become "Jim's is disrespecting everyone else at the table by playing a wizard."?

If you continue to slow play every time due to lack of preparation, that shows a general disrespect for the time of others playing.

I've known players that could be reading the PHB on their off time between sessions, and reading it from the end of each of their turns until the start of their next, that still take a bit of time to be sure how it is they go about doing what it is they want to do.

Maybe it is because I have a particular weakness in my own ability to retain information (If I write anything down, I invariably forget everything about what I have written other than that I have written it down - so if I lose that bit of paper, I have lost all hope of knowing whatever it was that I followed the constantly given advice of "write it down so you don't forget it." and wrote down), but all I see in this scenario of someone supposedly being disrespectful is someone letting their lack of patience turn them into the kid in school that bullied a kid for reading out loud slowly and caused that slow-reader that was interested in getting better at reading to instead hate reading and feel terribly.

Wheaton's Rule.

I agree with Wheaton... I just find that I'm more likely to apply by means of "Everybody just chill. Go ahead Jim, it's your turn, take all the time you need." than by means of "Stop holding up the game, Jim!" because "all the time you need" is what I am making sure everyone at the table has on their turn, not some specific amount of seconds. It is one of many cases when "equal" and "fair" aren't actually synonymous.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So... putting in effort (all that reading the book), but not seeing results as fast as some other person would prefer, and not using a method to learn that another person suggests that might not even actually be helpful to you because of the way you learn, is disrespectful?

I would say that you're misreading me if that was your take-away to my statement of continually, and without improvement, exhibiting the same slow play behavior.

At what point does "Jim's really interested in becoming good at playing a wizard, but is having some difficulty achieving that goal," become "Jim's is disrespecting everyone else at the table by playing a wizard."?

When there's a noted lack of improvement. No, there isn't a set schedule of improvement, everyone's different, but I was specifically addressing a lack of improvement based on a lack of effort. Your postulation of a player attempting to improve but doing so slowly is already outside the scope of my complaint.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I would say that you're misreading me if that was your take-away to my statement of continually, and without improvement, exhibiting the same slow play behavior.

The reason my take-away is what it is can be summed up in this one question: "continually, and without improvement" for how long, exactly?

When there's a noted lack of improvement. No, there isn't a set schedule of improvement, everyone's different...

These two statements are mutually exclusive: there either is a set schedule for improvement by which a lack can be noted, or it is not possible to both note a lack of improvement and that the lack is because of insufficient effort rather than insufficient time.

Your postulation of a player attempting to improve but doing so slowly is already outside the scope of my complaint.

Your complaint, perhaps... but the complaint which I originally quoted, and you joined the conversation regarding, I don't think that has been shown to be the case.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

In what way, exactly, are reading speed and aptitude in retaining information inherently tied to whether or not you are being respectful?

To me, its not the "reading" bit that's disrespectful, it's the "shuffling through the PHB bit".

"Hey, player, your sorcerer only has five spells. Write them out on a piece of paper ahead of time. That way instead of 5 minutes shuffling through the PHB, you spend 30 seconds shuffling through one or two pieces of paper."

"Hey, player, your fighter only has three manouvres. Write them on your character sheet ahead of time."

"Hey, player, you should know whether your bard's inspiration is d6 or d8, you shouldn't be looking it up in the PHB every combat. Either memorise it or write it on your character sheet."

At my table, I have banned the use of the PHB during combat (with exceptions, of course). I did this after one combat lasted an entire 3½ hour session. When the PCs were level 3.

TL/DR: Players need to make better use of their character sheet. They should not need to look anything up in the rulebook because it should already be written on their character sheet.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

To me, its not the "reading" bit that's disrespectful, it's the "shuffling through the PHB bit".

"Shuffling through the PHB" is just "reading" said with judgement.

TL/DR: Players need to make better use of their character sheet. They should not need to look anything up in the rulebook because it should already be written on their character sheet.

I don't know... it's a lot easier to read the rule-book's typeset than to tell what the players have scribbled down on their sheet and then smudge, blurred, or faded with an accidental drip of beverage or dropped morsel of snack, and the pages seem to stay in much better order in the book than sitting in front of a player.

I'm much more partial to, and believe is often more efficient too, writing down as few words on the character sheet as is possible and noting page numbers for where to look if further information or a reminder is in order. Though that is probably at least partially as a result of my previously mentioned "to write down is to forget" trait.

 

[Horwath]

In what way, exactly, are reading speed and aptitude in retaining information inherently tied to whether or not you are being respectful?

If a player needing a few minutes to make sure they are doing the thing they actually want to do, likely in their (however long it might be) process of trying to "get" this character they enjoy (or at the very east aim to enjoy through "getting it down") is disrespectful... does that mean that mean that I am the most respectful player present because I have been a DM so frequently for so long that I don't even need to check the book for most monster stats?

As a DM that is very nice if you have the most monsters memorized, but it's not required of you.

As a DM you must remember the whole session in advance and improvised if needs be. And you cant be expected to know every NPC you have created by heart.

But, as a player your ARE expected to know what your character can do, if you cant remember and most of as cant remember every detail of everything, write it down so you'll have it at a glance.

If everyone had decently written character sheets with extra page of spell description for prepared spells it would cut the PHB shuffling by 90%.

Also if your character is able to grapple from time to time as he is good at it, write down what grapple do and how to do it, or atleast white on character sheet, GRAPPLE; PHB page 195.


basically, do most what's in your ability to prepare for session and memorize the most you can, rules that are relevant to your character.

 

[Sunseeker]

DMG, pg 5, 5th paragraph under "Part 3: Master of Rules". <-- basically says "You're the DM, you need to know the rules or where to find them if you don't".

On the first part...yes, you need to be a human reference sheet if you want to be anything even approaching a great DM. You can get by with relying on players for stuff, sure, but you (general "you", again) will never be a great DM. This is fine for most groups (hell, probably all groups!), but it doesn't change the fact that a truly superior DM will know the game inside and out. And the real test is, as always, "Is everyone at the table having a good time?". As long as that answer is "HELL YA!, then keep on keeping on. However...

Emphasis mine and Snip for expedience and this is really the last comment I'll make on your absurd proposition.

I worked for a law firm for a year and I learned one very important thing: You NEVER need to know everything. You only need to know where you can find it, which is indeed, exactly what the book says. Memorization is a waste of time especially when the rules are constantly being added to and updated. It's the same thing that schools should teach, that college does teach and what you will figure out through real life: You don't need to know everything, you only need to know where to find it.

I know where to find all the rules. There's a handy-dandy index in each and every book.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Ah, so the original statement was misleading - it is not how long it takes the player to take their turn that is disrespectful, which is what was actually said, but not making your best effort (whatever they might be, since what works to help one person learn doesn't necessarily help another person learn, and can even potentially be a hindrance instead) when trying to learn a new character.

 

[Sunseeker]

Ah, so the original statement was misleading - it is not how long it takes the player to take their turn that is disrespectful, which is what was actually said, but not making your best effort (whatever they might be, since what works to help one person learn doesn't necessarily help another person learn, and can even potentially be a hindrance instead) when trying to learn a new character.

Sure, that might be more accurate. In context the lack of effort in learning a new character resulting in a significant time delay while the DM had to read the spell (because the player was unprepared) and was both disrespectful to the DM by causing the DM to have to drop what he is doing to clean up after that player and is disrespectful to the other players because it delays the game for them and also devalues the time they spent learning their characters.

It was primarily a lack of effort which delayed the game and caused problems by a player who is otherwise usually a prepared person. I think that's sort of the icing on the top of the issue, the guy knows how to be prepared, but in this situation chose not to.