Should Players Engage With The Rules?

[mhacdebhandia]

Personally I say " Hey, come play in my new campaign." They all come around and we start playing. I say, "so, what do you want do do?" The player says "I want to do <insert game action here>". I say "roll'em, you need a 16", the player rolls the dice. The players action has its dramatic consequence, and we all have a bit of a laugh (or cheer or boo or whatever) at the outcome. The action continues and we all have fun.

Is that really so hard?

When you have to do it for every action after a year's playing time? Yes, I think it is too hard. I play in a few games, and some of the newer players don't even know where to look in the book to level up their characters, understand how to add the numbers the chart gives them, or how their feats work - after about a year of (on average) biweekly play.

I'm hard-pressed to think of an excuse for that, especially given that the player appears to take delight in what their character is capable of in combat.

 

[Thanee]

I definitely prefer it, if the players show some interest in the game by learning at least what is relevant for their respective characters.

I'm certainly aware, that not everyone is good at or likes to know the rules, so I would not require someone to actually know the rules well, but the interest should be there.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Its nice when a player knows all the rules to the game system - but it isn't always necessary. As long as the player knows what they need to know to effectively roleplay their character to the best of their ability - then they're good. A player that has it all down is a boon to the GM - they can help the other players out when they are find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

 

[vortex]

When you have to do it for every action after a year's playing time? Yes, I think it is too hard. I play in a few games, and some of the newer players don't even know where to look in the book to level up their characters, understand how to add the numbers the chart gives them, or how their feats work - after about a year of (on average) biweekly play.

I'm hard-pressed to think of an excuse for that, especially given that the player appears to take delight in what their character is capable of in combat.

Perhaps you should loosen up on the rules. If a rule is too complex for the GM to not be able to adjudicate it on the spot - its a bad rule.
Now if the players are into complex rules, they'll learn them. But if, after a year of playing, they don't seem to fussed about an enchantment bonus here and a partial concealment there, just say "hitting the ghost pixie, thats a pretty difficult shot. Hmm...that'll be a -6 on your hit roll." Keep it simple and keep it moving.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Personally I say " Hey, come play in my new campaign." They all come around and we start playing. I say, "so, what do you want do do?" The player says "I want to do <insert game action here>". I say "roll'em, you need a 16", the player rolls the dice. The players action has its dramatic consequence, and we all have a bit of a laugh (or cheer or boo or whatever) at the outcome. The action continues and we all have fun.

Is that really so hard?

But when it's:

"So what do you want to do?"
"I want to charge the ogre and hit it with my scimitars!"
"Well... you'll need to take an action to draw them, and then you won't be able to charge. Or you can draw them while moving normally, but you won't get the charge bonus, and you'll only get to make a single attack, not both. And remember, the ogre will get an AoO when you move through his threatened space."
"Wait, I thought an AoO was only when you left - I'm charging him, right?"
"He's got reach. You'll provoke an AoO when you leave the square ten feet away."
"Damn. Well, how about if I shoot him instead? Bob's right there - can I get +2 for flanking?"
"Firstly, flanking's only when you're directly opposite each other, and secondly, you only get the +2 with a melee attack."
"Oh. Okay, well, I'll shoot the ogre with Rapid Shot."
"You only get one shot - you need a Move action to draw your bow."
"Hmmph. So what do I add again?"

... not once, but every combat, it gets a bit old.

-Hyp.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Normally I'd say all players should know all the (most important) rules, so (s)he has at least a vague idea of what's happening...

In my current Eberron campaign one player (artificer character) is so uninterested in the rules that even the most basic spellcasting is problematic: "What, identify has a cost?", and "What, it takes me 1 hour to cast it?" are just two examples. Simply reading the spell's description (in the book or on the spell card) before wanting to cast it would help... but no, that should be the GM's job (or so the player thinks).

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

Me too. And I've got a CD player nearby where I just hit "Play" whenever I need to grab the bat. The first song, naturally, is Beat on the Brat (Ramones).
"Beat on the brat... beat on the brat... beat on the brat with a baseball bat, oh yeah."
Works every time.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"What, identify has a cost?"

"Yes. Just like it did last week. And last month, too. When Alan spent an hour hunting through the city for 100gp pearls. Remember?"

Grr.

Could be worse, of course. "Okay, I'll cast Summon Monster IV! ... what do you mean, 'one round casting time'? ... hmm, okay. Anyway, I want to summon... um... hey, what's a 'mephit'? Are they any good?"

-Hyp.

 

[vortex]

But when it's:

"So what do you want to do?"
"I want to charge the ogre and hit it with my scimitars!"
"Well... you'll need to take an action to draw them, and then you won't be able to charge. Or you can draw them while moving normally, but you won't get the charge bonus, and you'll only get to make a single attack, not both. And remember, the ogre will get an AoO when you move through his threatened space."
"Wait, I thought an AoO was only when you left - I'm charging him, right?"
"He's got reach. You'll provoke an AoO when you leave the square ten feet away."
"Damn. Well, how about if I shoot him instead? Bob's right there - can I get +2 for flanking?"
"Firstly, flanking's only when you're directly opposite each other, and secondly, you only get the +2 with a melee attack."
"Oh. Okay, well, I'll shoot the ogre with Rapid Shot."
"You only get one shot - you need a Move action to draw your bow."
"Hmmph. So what do I add again?"

... not once, but every combat, it gets a bit old.

-Hyp.

I'd just do it this way -
"So what do you want to do?"
"I want to charge the ogre and hit it with my scimitars!"
"Sure - the orgres are a little way off. You draw your weapons and charge in. As you get close the ogres clobber you <roll dice, deliver outcome>. They've got longer arms than you so get a free hit as you move in. You will be able to him'em next round."

"Ok (to the next player) you're up - what do ya want to do?"

 

[S'mon]

It works either way - either GM runs all the rules stuff (and tracks the PC sheets) or the players do. What doesn't work is mixing non-rules-oriented players with min-max number-cruncher types. Default 3e is certainly oriented to the second type of player I'd reckon, but doesn't have to be run like that - certainly PBEM play is more fun with "real roleplayer" players than with rules-lawyer players.

 

[S'mon]

I find that for players who don't like learning rules, either simple warrior type characters or rogues can work well - that is assuming the player trusts the GM to make combat decisions for the PC/point out the likely optimum course of action in combat (eg if it seems PC would clearly benefit from power attacking, at least suggest it to the player). If player is running a spellcaster I think they do need to know how the spell system works, magic isn't intuitive the way "hit guy with sword" is.
If player doesn't trust the GM, well, they darn well better know the rules 100% AND be willing to accept the GM's rule-0s.