Quote from: RandallS;597157...I've never had any session go anything like your imaginary session. Not even the very first time someone plays an RPG.

I think it was just supposed to be funny.

And it was.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;596930So 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.

If players knowing the rules prevents or dissuades players from doing the types of things you want to encourage in your game, then you are using the wrong rules for your game.

Quote from: Gabriel2;597163If players knowing the rules prevents or dissuades players from doing the types of things you want to encourage in your game, then you are using the wrong rules for your game.

No, the problem isn't rules, it's the different ways in which people conceptualize them.

Anyway..

Haven't you admitted to putting models together during gaming sessions? I'd rather hand hold someone through every combat than put up with that shit.

Actually, I always learn the rules, because I enjoy reading mechanics and figuring them out. however, if I played with a GM who had as much of hard on as some of the guys in this thread seem to, well I wouldn't be back for seconds.

Quote from: Gib;597169Haven't you admitted to putting models together during gaming sessions? I'd rather hand hold someone through every combat than put up with that shit.

Nope.  I do think I remember the thread you may be referring to though.  Someone said they brought a model to a game session because they didn't think they'd be engaged and wanted something to do.

Quote from: Arturick;597152OH HELL NO!

Playing an RPG with players who don't know the rules is kind of like having sex with a minor.  Even if they say "yes," you don't really have informed consent.

wow, yeah, there's an apt analogy...

QuotePlayers who know the rules are playing a game.

Players who don't know the rules are telling a story, and I hear the Pundit disapproves of such things.

Um, no not at all. A player role playing a character is playing an RPG. Say, for example, I'm running a FASERIP game. The player describes what the character does or intends to do, if needed I ask them to roll the dice. Based on the result of the roll I describe what happens. This is the core of any RPG, including the very first published RPG. Hell this is the crux of "old school gaming".

Conversely, if a player is using rules to gain "narrative control" of what is happening, thinking about the game as a story and making choices based on that instead of what the character would do, then they are "playing a story".

Quote from: Gabriel2;597172Nope.  I do think I remember the thread you may be referring to though.  Someone said they brought a model to a game session because they didn't think they'd be engaged and wanted something to do.

My mistake then.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;597091I've played with someone once who needed a tutorial on how to make a simple attack roll in D&D almost every damn round!  Every time it was her turn she would just give me a blank stare and expect everyone else to walk her through the process for the 100th time and it was very frustrating.  She really liked the game too, but she couldn't grasp ANYTHING related to the mechanics of it.

And yet, it never occurred to you to roll the attack for her and just tell her the result?

Quote from: Technomancer;596904I also agree woth BedrockBrendan. I don't care how much or how little effort someone wants to put into learning the mechanics as long as their lack of knowledge does not create an inconvenience or imposition on the GM or the other players.

I tend to agree, but knowing enough not to be an inconvenience is pretty much my group's definition of "having learned the rules." So I'm perfectly willing to be the bad guy here and say NO, that's not okay. I've got a player in the current campaign I've been running for over a year, using a rules set I know he's been playing for close to 30 years, and he's still not capable of resolving the simplest roll without help. He's not stupid: I've seen him master other games. It's just... annoying.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;597206I've got a player in the current campaign I've been running for over a year, using a rules set I know he's been playing for close to 30 years, and he's still not capable of resolving the simplest roll without help. He's not stupid: I've seen him master other games. It's just... annoying.

You say you've seen him master other games, so what do you think is the problem with the one you're running? Is he not into it? Is he burned out and doesn't want to invest any effort in learning stuff anymore? There should be some solutions.

Quote from: vytzka;597225You say you've seen him master other games, so what do you think is the problem with the one you're running? Is he not into it? Is he burned out and doesn't want to invest any effort in learning stuff anymore? There should be some solutions.

There should be, but this one's really got me stumped. The "procedure" for making a skill roll, for example, has been explained to him multiple times. Two weeks later we're back at the table again. I ask for a roll during a scene, and... everything comes to a screeching halt as he stares blankly at his character sheet in confusion.

Aside from that he's really into the game, though.

As long as they know which dice are which and READ THE FUCKING SPELL DESCRIPTION, I don't give a flying fuck about players knowing the rules.

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

Are they locked into the game world and their character?

If so, I'm good.

I'd much rather that than someone who obsesses over the rules and doesn't actually worry about their character and/or the world.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;597244There should be, but this one's really got me stumped. The "procedure" for making a skill roll, for example, has been explained to him multiple times. Two weeks later we're back at the table again. I ask for a roll during a scene, and... everything comes to a screeching halt as he stares blankly at his character sheet in confusion.

Aside from that he's really into the game, though.

Depending on the game, you could find a third party character sheet with short explanations of common mechanics so he could look them up before it becomes relevant. Skills: stabbing 1, sneaking 2, selling 1 [to use a skill, roll a d12 and get a number smaller or equal to skill + relevant statistic]. That kind of thing.

Come to think of it, a quick reference sheet is a Godsend for many new or inexperienced players. A half page to a page (not more!) of a summary for each and "please review this before we start to refresh your memory" before starting. Bite sized chunks!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;597119This is different from not learning the majority of the rules. This is the difference between having a functioning human brain and being a houseplant.

Well yeah, but I didn't interpret the original question as 'do you expect all the players to know every single rule in the game' so my response was to what I felt the original question was which was; 'how does one feel about players who don't learn the very basics of the game that apply to them and their characters'.

Quote from: talysman;597187And yet, it never occurred to you to roll the attack for her and just tell her the result?

Gee thanks, I'll keep that in mind for next time!

  Seriously, It's not my fucking job to roll all the damn dice and do all the fucking work for everyone else at the table.  I have enough to worry about as GM.  It's the players obligation to know the basics of how to run their own characters as they are clearly explained to them in a manner a child could understand before play even begins.  In my particular case, this girl was either too stupid ( REALLY stupid ) to comprehend the simple rules that were explained to her over and over or simply just too lazy to bother learning them.  Either way, it was on her not me.

I know some GM's like to do ALL of the rolling and just tell the players the results, but most don't do it that way and I know I certainly don't, so your  comment implying I was somehow the one to blame is quite frankly rediculous.

Quote from: talysman;597187And yet, it never occurred to you to roll the attack for her and just tell her the result?

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;597333Gee thanks, I'll keep that in mind for next time!

  Seriously, It's not my fucking job to roll all the damn dice and do all the fucking work for everyone else at the table.  I have enough to worry about as GM.  It's the players obligation to know the basics of how to run their own characters as they are clearly explained to them in a manner a child could understand before play even begins.  In my particular case, this girl was either too stupid ( REALLY stupid ) to comprehend the simple rules that were explained to her over and over or simply just too lazy to bother learning them.  Either way, it was on her not me.

I know some GM's like to do ALL of the rolling and just tell the players the results, but most don't do it that way and I know I certainly don't, so your  comment implying I was somehow the one to blame is quite frankly rediculous.

The thing is, it IS your job.

Or if that feels too harsh for you, consider it this way: it's your job to take care of your own enjoyment. If explaining a die roll mechanic over and over is too infuriating for you, find a way to avoid explaining it. Like, by rolling for the person. If that doesn't make you happy and both options seem equally infuriating, delegate someone else to handle that player's die rolls. If that seems unacceptable, get rid of the player. If the player contributes too much to your game for that to be an option, switch to an easier game system, or simplify the mechanic. If all these options are unacceptable, if you honestly are so crippled by indecision trying to pick among all these equally horrifying situations... well, tough titty said the kitty, but the milk's still good. Buck up.

Honestly, though, if rolling dice for one person would be an enormous addition to your workload, that's a clue as to why that person doesn't want to bother learning those rules. It's too much trouble for no additional enjoyment. These people aren't stupid; they're smarter than you, because they've figured out what they don't like and they've come up with a plan to get someone else to take over that burden, so they can just focus on what they like.

The idea that players are obligated to learn mechanical manipulations, hard or *easy*, is what's ridiculous. They are only obligated to learn the basics needed to run their character -- which is the rules of the fictional world. Not which bonuses apply to which situation. The game is about imagining what your character would do in various situations, not mechanics. Mechanics are just a gimmick to make stuff happen in the fictional world.

Nevertheless, I feel sorry for you, so I'll let you in on a secret: if you make a simple rule that you aren't going to figure out bonuses for players, and that players only get a bonus if they can remember to tell you about them, they will learn what their bonuses are. People want to learn things when there's an advantage to doing so.