Should Players Engage With The Rules?

[mhacdebhandia]

Although I understand that many people play role-playing games primarily for the story, the chance to pretend to be someone else, or for other "non-game" "role-playing" reasons, I personally find it quite frustrating when someone agrees to play a game (like Third Edition D&D) which fairly heavily relies upon a detailed ruleset and subsequently refuses, subtly or overtly, to actually engage with the rules, even if only as they apply to their own characters.

You can read anecdotes posted here and on other gaming fora, every so often, about players who won't make any effort to learn the rules and numbers governing their characters' abilities - who tune out whenever dice need to be rolled - who are actively hostile to reading the rulebooks for the game and learning how it works.

There are lots of gamers in the world playing D&D (for example) because it's the only game in town - though other, more narrative-oriented game systems might suit their preferences better, they don't know anyone willing to play them or simply haven't even encountered them before. I know a member of my university's gaming society who was intensely jazzed when he encountered White Wolf's new Storytelling System, because he'd simply never seen anything other than D&D in his high school gaming career, and was filled with unexpressible longing for something painted in broader strokes than the d20 System which would allow him to run a looser, more story-oriented game.

Maybe he ought to be playing Fudge.

I enjoy both sides of the roleplaying experience - I enjoy both the stories and the mechanics, and I've never found that the d20 System interferes with my enjoyment of the stories. It seems to me, though, that if you're going to play in a roleplaying game which assumes heavy use of the rules (like D&D), you ought to commit to learning at least those rules which apply to your character.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I just can't fathom how someone can be so committed to their character's personality, motivations, and goals and yet so disinterested in their character's survival as to tune out completely in combat and let someone else "take care of it".

What do you think?

 

[Darkness]

I'd say yes, but it also depends on character concept and campaign type. If your character isn't supposed to be good in combat (or whatever) and the GM is okay with it, go for it. (Though that is not quite this thread's main point, of course - you can be a rules guru and still play non-optimized if your concept suggests it.)

I voted for option 2, BTW.

 

[Crothian]

Ya, players should know the ruiles. There are few things as aqnnoying as explaining the rules to people for the 37th time

 

[Rystil Arden]

As long as they can play their character without slowing the game down (which usually is the case even if they don't know all the rules because I've memorised everything I need to do it for them), it doesn't matter how many of the rules they know. Once they start becoming a problem for the group, that's when I shove the PH in front of them and urge them to at least learn a few of the more important rules.

 

[IronWolf]

The player doesn't need to be a rules know it all but they should at least the know the rules that directly impact their character and hopefully at least have a passing familiarity with the majority of combat rules. It just makes things flow easier and in many ways can help roleplay the character a little better since they know the rules well enough to know what their character can or can't do within the constraints of the rules.

 

[dvvega]

As someone who has written/run games at conventions, I have run into various teams that want to do one method or another.

For example:

1) the hardcore dice monkeys - they play their games as written, all power gaming allowed if it is in the book, etc etc.

2) the average table-topper - they mix their roleplaying with rules but they're able to not focus solely on rules

3) the "White Wolves" - those that were weened on White-Wolf's system (or other similar system) and use less dice than (2) but still use dice.

4) the "Angsty White Wolves" - they've developed/experimented with other forms of resolution and dice are nowhere to be seen.

At a convention I like to make the players happy to play my game and thus don't force feed them "my way". So with each group I have "re-worked" d20.

1) Play as written, just make them roll more often that normal. For example a search for traps at an appropriate moment is an auto-success for the right character in the party without a roll, but (1)'s need dice ... so make them roll every time. And also add in atmosphere that makes them think the roll was close, so their dice are important.

2) Use the auto-success for characters with decent enough modifiers method. They roll for combat and so forth, but skills that will make DC 15 (or other number depending on level) generally succeed without a roll.

3) They generally live with (2).

4) Automatically assume people are "taking 10" on every single roll (or other number based on situation - fighters get 15 for combat for example). Of course I have to modify ACs slightly sometimes but most of these types of players know the combat guy should do the fighting so won't expect the wizard to hit a heavily armoured fighter. All damage rolls are average but high. So 1d6 average is 3.5 => 4.

I have found that these methods work in a mixed group as well. For example I've had groups where you have the obvious budding thespian who refuses to roll dice and wants to roleplay it all, while in the corner is the dice jockey who wants to roll that power critical. By using one of the methods for each player I find it works out nicely.

So to answer your question: you can handle this kind of person easily. Take his/her greatest assets and make them an automatic 10/15 (or other roll - just make sure they succeed in their field of endeavour more often than fail) and anything else is an automatic 5/10 etc. After a while they'll either want to start rolling dice or be happy with it.

D

 

[Razz0putin]

I think Crothian said it best after you've explained it for the umpteenth time it's just rude. They don't have to learn the rules but you don't neccessarily have to provide toilet paper at your house either. btw I chose 3 doesn't have to buy should

 

[Torm]

Players should know the rules. THEN, they should also learn the difference between, "Hey, the DM just accidently made a mistake and I should tell him," and "Hey, the DM is trying to do something cool for story purposes that doesn't exactly follow the rules so I'm going to munchkin-rules-lawyer the sh*t out of him for the next two hours."

 

[Crothian]

Players should know the rules. THEN, they should also learn the difference between, "Hey, the DM just accidently made a mistake and I should tell him," and "Hey, the DM is trying to do something cool for story purposes that doesn't exactly follow the rules so I'm going to munchkin-rules-lawyer the sh*t out of him for the next two hours."

That's why when I DM I have a bat near by in case something like this happens.

 

[Tharian]

I do think that if you are going to take the time to play in a game with other people, you should at least take the time to know that rules that have a direct impact upon your PC. Even if it is not a combat situation (though that's where the rules will have most immediate or noticeable impact), a player should not just sit back and let others tell him what to do.

I have a comparable issue going on in the campaign I am currently in as there is one player there who doesn't have much of an idea as to what rules impact his character nor does he seem at all interested in learning those rules. Then again, I think I've already decided that the only reason he is in the game in the first place is because his girlfriend is also in the same game.