Should Players Engage With The Rules?

[kigmatzomat]

I've got a guy who's ever so slowly learning the rules. Of course, half the time his problem is doing basic math. I swear he's got a short-term memory disorder. He can remember stuff that's happened a week or 2 ago, no problem, but a list with more than 2 items is beyond him.

What I generally do is translate. "I wanna charge it and hit it!" gets a response of "If you want to make Charge action, getting the extra damage, it'll take more than one round since your sword isn't drawn. If you just want to get to it and hit it you can do that but it's big and might swat you in the process." "Ummm, hit it now." "Right. Make an attack roll at your highest bonus. If you have tumble, roll it."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, I wouldn't expect a player to have to know what numbers he should add.

I can't wrap my head around that. As a DM, I'd expect someone to be able to tell me that their attack roll is a 29.

-Hyp.

 

[Kirin'Tor]

I think a player should _at least_ know the rules that apply to his character, preferably his whole group - A fighter should know how his combat abilities work, what special manuvers he can do, and what bonuses he gets from being near the party Bard or under the effect of a Cleric's buff...

I have more than one player who's not very familiar with the system, but they try (adn don't own the d20 Books), so I for give that. What I don't forgive is a player I have, who own all 3 3.5 Core Books, who doesn't even learn the rules for the _one- char. type he plays: rogue.

Even worse is a DM with no writing skill _and_ no gaming skill. yes the player mentioned above has run more than one 'go nowhere, get nothing done' game...

 

[vortex]

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.

I couldn't agree with you more.

The GM runs the game and uses the rules to keep its internal consistency.
The rules call for things such as die rolls, because they create drama and surprise.
However,(in my opinion) the rules should contain the play, but never get in the way of play.
The less rule-talk (meta-talk) at the table, the better.
Instead, the players tell the GM what they want to do, the GM synthesises this into the ruleset, calls for a die roll (purely for its dramatic effect) and dictates the outcome.

 

[vortex]

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.

On a different philosophical note - there as a school of thought that states that the last bastion of predjudice is intellectual predjudice. ie discrimination based on a lack of intelligence or education.

I think this is something that we geeky-types can sometimes be found guilty of.

 

[Timeboxer]

I find in most games there are rule-geeks and there are casual players.

You lost me right here, when you set up "casual players" as a moderate and "rule-geeks" as an extreme.

 

[Timeboxer]

The very best experiences I've had as a DM are with player's that don't know the rules at all.

There's nothing stopping you from adding to your house rules something to the effect of, "You are not allowed to know the rules of the game. You must act as if you do not know the rules at all. Knowing the rules is Treason. Trust the Computer! The Computer is your friend!"

 

[Chimera]

Perhaps. But for some of us, neither is it a problem. While it may get on your nerves, try to avoid over-generalizing or over-stating the point.

So it's no problem at all, but actually fun when your players not only refuse to learn the rules, but get angry and personally offensive about it?

 

[vortex]

You lost me right here, when you set up "casual players" as a moderate and "rule-geeks" as an extreme.

Quite the oposite - I think most players are big on rules, its just there are some that are not.

 

[reanjr]

What about people who are too dumb to learn the rules? I've got one of those in my game. It's a bit frustrating to remind him for the 10th time that session that he needs to add his initiative modifier to his initiative roll, but some people just don't grasp certain things.

[edit] This is why the lack of sensical rules that apply like real life is a problem for a role-playing game, despite how many people think that it's not important because it's just a game. Rules that represent reality as it really is (or at least as it is perceived in some cases - for instace if you run cinematic style games), allows people to make decisions without understanding the rules.