I prefer it.

Which is why I prefer systems that don't require engagement with the rules to play. Players should engage with the fictional world; if they engage with the rules at all, they should never make the rules the item of primary interest.

Quote from: RPGPundit;596871What do you feel about having players like that at your table? Guys who might play for years but don't bother to learn even the very basics of the system they're playing.  They MIGHT bother to understand their own most-frequently used number (what their "To-hit bonus" is, for example), or they might not.  But they know nothing of any further mechanics, and don't seem to want to.

Is that ok to you?

RPGPundit

Do you have to ask?

Suffice it to say they will not stay very long in that state. One way or another.

Count me among those that don't mind terribly.

I'd rather players be less interested in the rules and more interested in the setting. Players who know the rules so well and take pride in using them to game the system are less welcome at my table than people who are just there to play and couldn't give a shit about the rules.

Mother's Own Award-winning Homemade Role-playing Game Recipe:

Take 1 stainless steel GM,
Add 1 pre-packaged Rules Lawyer,
Stir in a mixing bowl…
When mixed, add 2 completely new players with no knowledge or particular care to learn the rules, fresh from the store.
Throw in 3-4 cups of regular players (or nearly 2/3rds of the mix) from the supplies in your cupboards.
Add more rules lawyers to taste - I find that with more than one the game can become too bitter.
Pour into baking dish with oven preheated at 360 degrees and bake until golden brown.

Fun ensues.

//Panjumanju

I think sometimes it's a bit frustrating, because if such a player learned the rules they might come up with something neat to do with their character that they hadn't previously considered, but otherwise it's not a big deal.

Quote from: RPGPundit;596871Is that ok to you?

No.  If they can't be bothered to know the basics of the game they're playing, they they clearly don't have any real interest in playing.

In my experience, such players are only playing RPGs because they don't have anywhere else to go.  They're wasting their own time and the time of the people they're playing wth.

Quote from: This Guy;596926I think sometimes it's a bit frustrating, because if such a player learned the rules they might come up with something neat to do with their character that they hadn't previously considered, but otherwise it's not a big deal.

So constantly doing neat things with thier characters during actual play doesn't count?

I find the opposite to be true most of the time. Players who don't think rules first often come up with some of the coolest stuff because their ideas don't get edited by rules filters first.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;596930I find the opposite to be true most of the time. Players who don't think rules first often come up with some of the coolest stuff because their ideas don't get edited by rules filters first.

Exactly.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;596930I find the opposite to be true most of the time. Players who don't think rules first often come up with some of the coolest stuff because their ideas don't get edited by rules filters first.

That's my experience as well - I'd much rather a player tell me what she wants her character to do and then fit the rules around that as needed.

I find all my players quickly learn the rules.  

Just to spite me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;596871What do you feel about having players like that at your table? Guys who might play for years but don't bother to learn even the very basics of the system they're playing.  They MIGHT bother to understand their own most-frequently used number (what their "To-hit bonus" is, for example), or they might not.  But they know nothing of any further mechanics, and don't seem to want to.

Is that ok to you?

In an extreme form where they literally never learn anything and need someone to walk them through ever mechanical interaction? No. I've only seen one of these in 20+ years of gaming, but he stopped getting invited. It's like playing with someone who needs to be told to roll 2d6 every time their turn comes up in Monopoly.

The lesser form where they can manage maybe one or two core mechanics and that's it? This depends on the game system. To use some examples of stuff I've run or played recently:

OD&D -- Sure. As long as you can make an attack roll and suffer hit point damage without having your hand held every single time, we'll probably be OK.

D&D3 -- Probably okay as long as you're not trying to run a spellcaster. But probably not okay at higher levels: The trick to making high-level 3E work is to be able to off-load mechanics onto the players. I need to be able to say "you're stunned", for example, without having to give them the status modifiers for what stunned means every single time. Similarly, I simply don't have time as a DM to walk you through everything that gets modified when you get hit with a Strength penalty.

Technoir -- An interesting example because getting the game to function requires the players to understand the mechanical interaction with contacts and how that drives and engages the scenario. If players don't understand that and don't hit up their contacts, Technoir scenarios grind to a halt. (I found this out the hard way when I introduced some newbies to the game and didn't adequately explain the contact system. They didn't use it; the game stalled out until I realized the problem and corrected it.)

Eclipse Phase -- Kind of a blending of the problems experienced with Technoir and high-level D&D3. The system is sufficiently complicated that I can't efficiently centralize the management of the system as GM and the system also contains significant elements which are necessary for engaging the game world: If you don't know how to mechanically handle the mesh and reputation networks, then your character isn't capable of interacting with the mesh and reputation networks in the game world and scenarios are going to collapse messily.

In summary:

(1) I don't need players who obsess over every mechanical nuance of complicated systems.

(2) But I do expect players to master the basic mechanical interface of the game.

(3) And I've found that the most efficient and effective game tables are the ones where players are capable of carrying the mechanical weight of their own PCs. If I'm having to micro-manage your character sheet for you, that's less time that I'm focused on the game world: It's not only detrimental to what I'm creating, it's also a pace-killer and often a mood-killer. (With that being said, I have had success with tables where there are a few players who are masters of the rules who can step up and help those who aren't bear the mechanical weight of their PCs.)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;596930I find the opposite to be true most of the time. Players who don't think rules first often come up with some of the coolest stuff because their ideas don't get edited by rules filters first.

This is also true.

I'm fortunate enough to have a few players in my circle who are capable of mastering the rules without thinking exclusively through the rules. Any table they play at is instantly improved.

Quote from: RPGPundit;596871What do you feel about having players like that at your table? Guys who might play for years but don't bother to learn even the very basics of the system they're playing.  They MIGHT bother to understand their own most-frequently used number (what their "To-hit bonus" is, for example), or they might not.  But they know nothing of any further mechanics, and don't seem to want to.

Is that ok to you?

RPGPundit

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;596891If they are not slowing down play, i am totally cool with it. If it grinds play to a halt, it bothers me.

I am with Brendan in this.

I like that my players know as much as possible about rules and setting. Said this, I don't force them to know more than the functioning minimum.

It really depends. As a rule, someone who's not rules savvy but is otherwise very engaged with the plot and also accepts when the thing they want to do requires a rules-adjudication that they accept, then all is good. But if it's a player playing a game that needs a certain minimum rules mastery to work well, this can be a disaster. If the player's neither engaged with the rules or the game, then it's just a lump of flesh taking up table space.

I like the first kind: a player who's motivated by story but may not be savvy to underlying mechanics, and who does not dispute the rule calls if needed to arbitrate their actions. The other two, I try to jettison as quickly as possible.

I don't allow any one to play in my games unless they have a general knowledge of the rules.  My games are very rules-oriented so having players that don't know how to play is counterproductive.

Quote from: RPGPundit;596871What do you feel about having players like that at your table? Guys who might play for years but don't bother to learn even the very basics of the system they're playing.  They MIGHT bother to understand their own most-frequently used number (what their "To-hit bonus" is, for example), or they might not.  But they know nothing of any further mechanics, and don't seem to want to.

Is that ok to you?

RPGPundit

Absolutely. I encourage and support that. Go Immersionism!