Should Players Engage With The Rules?

[MonkeyDragon]

I think that players should make an effort to know what they're doing with their characters. That way, by the time you've played a whole bunch of characters, you'll know a whole bunch of rules. I think that yes, having to explain over and over and over again what dice to roll when can get really frustrating.

On the other hand, some people just learn very slowly. I myself am not terribly GOOD at remembering rules or spells. So I do my best, I look things up when I need to, pay attention at the table so I learn, and ask for help a lot. When I DM, I make sure that I prepare well enough that I can make good rulings without looking too much stuff up, and I will delegate the lookings up to players more experienced than I.

So I think patience is important. And I think that effort is more important than results. I would rather have someone who is perpetually clueless about the rules but tries to learn them than someone who knows them a little better but isn't interested in really TRYING to get good. I don't mind repeatedly helping someone with even the most basic of rules unless they expect me to constantly do the work for them and don't pay any attention to what I say.

 

[Arnwyn]

Well, for me and my group, I expect the players to know the PHB. That's all I care about them knowing. But, in any case, they are responsible for knowing the PHB - as DM, I'm not helping them with that aspect of the game.

But that's just us.

A very elaquent summary of the GMs role.

Of some GMs' role. Certainly not mine.

 

[Celebrim]

In my experience, players knowing the rules just gets in the way of thier role playing. They should only learn the rules after they've mastered role playing as a skill.

The very best experiences I've had as a DM are with player's that don't know the rules at all. Without any knowledge of the rules, the players are forced to tell me what thier character does in descriptive ways rather than in the precise but sterile language of the game system. That makes the game so much better. It's more fun for me as a DM, and it cuts down on the metagaming, the point maximizing, the twinkism, the rules lawyering, the whining, the demands for do-overs because the player forgot he was due some bonus, the page flipping by players who are reading when they should be listening, and the other things that get in the way of a good game.

On the other hand, a DM needs to know the rules of the game (and the contents of modules) backwards and forwards. A DM that needs to look up a feat or a spell effect or the rules on grappling or such is IMO not a very good DM. It's your job to make sure all that goes so smoothly that there is never a significant interuption between the player declaring his intentions, and the DM relaying back to him the results. Game's should be engrossing, rapid, and when danger is present tense and exciting. Any time you spend 45 seconds (or longer!) flipping through a book, you're player's attention will understandably wander.

Nothing irritates me more than being a PC to a DM who clearly doesn't know the system he's running. The really good DM's always seem to be master's of the system, even if you latter learn that in the first three sessions they were totally screwing things up but were able to seamlessly integrate the things that they learned as they went along. As a PC, IMO not knowing what the system is in know way detracts from the quality of the game, and this only reinforces my opinion that players don't need to know the rules.

The only thing that comes close to being as irritating as a DM that doesn't know the rules, is a player that doesn't feel he can 'role play' until he knows the rules. For me, this is the very definition of a 'roll player' and I'm seriously tempted everytime I meet such a player to just tell him to stop wasting my time and go find a game elsewhere.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I think I'd like to disagree. As long as people are doing their counting and planning on OTHER people's turns I don't care how much they optimize their spells or look up things in books.

That's what I meant -- sitting there while the player whose turn it is does all the crap he should have done while it was someone else's turn.

 

[Jdvn1]

Also yes. I've seen way too many players wanting to do things that just aren't possible or even logical.

"Oooh, can I (stuff, stuff, stuff, stuff, stuff)?"
"... Do you even know what game this is?"

 

[Victim]

I understand you, I just don't agree with you
I guess I've never noticed rules knoweledge (or lack there of) as being a big deal.
I play games with my friends for fun. Academic qualifications in gaming science aren't required.

Wow, I do that too. But it still a game, and games have rules. Would you have a fun time playing chess against someone who refused to learn how the pieces move? Are they even really playing the game at that point? What about sports? It's one thing to not know the rules when you start playing, but it's another to refuse to learn them.

 

[Celebrim]

But when it's:

"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.

This is perfect example of why having the player's know the rules is a problem, and why attempting to teach them the rules directly does nothing to help you.

I'd consider any of the following potentially valid resolutions of the above depending on the exact situation...

ME: "Ok, bob, it's your turn."
BOB: "I want to charge the ogre and hit it with my scimitars!"
ME: "Ok, you take off running but by the time you get your weapons drawn and up to full speed, the ogre is able to continue his attack on Haldor and you are still 20 feet away."
BOB: "Hold on, Haldor, I'm coming!"
ME: "Ok, John, Haldor is under attack, what do you want to do..."

OR

ME: "Ok, bob, it's your turn."
BOB: "I want to charge the ogre and hit it with my scimitars!"
ME: "Ok, you draw your weapon and take off running toward the ogre with blades brandished. Unfortunately, the orge hears and sees you coming. He's whirling that big club around like it was a baton, and just before you get in position to attack he lets you have it. *clatter* *clatter* You only barely are able to duck beneath a blow that would crush an ox to jelly, but even so you take a glancing blow that does a whopping 11 damage."
BOB: "Ouch."
ME: "At least no, Rivaldo is in position to take his revenge. Roll a D20 and see if you hit with a scimitar attack...."
BOB: *clatter* *clatter* "Ut oh, an 8."
ME: "You attack is clumsy, but it has alot of momentum behind it and the Ogre is distracted by his attempts to keep Haldor at bay. Despite your poor swing, you still manage a solid blow on the Ogre's massive and exposed thigh."

I would NEVER tell a player that his action couldn't be justified by the rules or for some reason presented a rules difficulty to me in resolving, unless under the rules the stated action was completely suicidal. If it was, and I was feeling generous, I'd let the player make a wisdom check to represent the fact that his character might no better than the player does, and if successful I'd a) preempt the action "Haldor doesn't feel like that's a very good idea. " and b) assume that the character took a Ready or Focus action and get back to the player when he had another idea. BTW, if a player can't tell me within a few second what he wants to do, I also assume that the character is also uncertain and thinking about it, and assume that a Focus action has been taken. This isn't a game of chess. It shouldn't play like one.

Also, I wouldn't expect a player to have to know what numbers he should add. I'll have summaries of common 'to hit' and save bonuses for all my players on the pad that I record XP and other notes, before the game even starts. All I need from the players is a decision and a dice throw.

 

[Timeboxer]

I think it's kind of silly to expect the DM to know all the rules, and require the players to know none.

Although preferable to a player or two knowing all of the rules and the DM knowing none, which is a situation I've found myself in multiple times before.

 

[Corinth]

There is no good reason for encouraging or enabling ignorance. Knowledge is always the better way, and I take a dim view of those that--for any reason--would discourage that pursuit. The wise GM always demands--and facilitates--that players learn, and master, the rules of the game. Only tyrants--and, in terms of RPGs, that's very pathetic--claim that ignorance is a virtue.

 

[Timeboxer]

There is no good reason for encouraging or enabling ignorance. Knowledge is always the better way, and I take a dim view of those that--for any reason--would discourage that pursuit. The wise GM always demands--and facilitates--that players learn, and master, the rules of the game. Only tyrants--and, in terms of RPGs, that's very pathetic--claim that ignorance is a virtue.

This is way off-topic, but I feel I should mention that there are several strands of intellectualism in the United States for which there is such a thing as "good knowledge" and "bad knowledge," i.e., knowledge has a moral alignment. Personally I am of the "all knowledge is good" variety, but it's always a good idea to step back and take a look at others' value systems.