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.

My, aren't you a sensitive one.

It's pretty simple. If you're unwilling to compromise with the player and pick up some of their workload, and you think they're being disruptive otherwise, then it might be a good idea to get rid of them altogether.

Just ask yourself "is the continued presence of this player worth the extra work rolling/explaining to them all the time". If not, well, too bad. If it is worth it, then stop complaining.

First AS&SH session, a player couldn't find his dice. I rolled for him the whole session. No problem whatsoever.

What kind of people don't have enough dice with them to loan their friends :eek:

Quote from: vytzka;597412What kind of people don't have enough dice with them to loan their friends :eek:

We were playing online via G+ hangouts so couldn't just reach across the table to loan each others' dice.

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.

Choose Your Own Response:

1.  No, it doesn't count, and fuck 'em.

2.  Hey, if they can do without, more power to them.  In my experience I've found that while a comprehensive knowledge of the rules does lead to the sort of thing you describe, having an understanding that is complete enough to be helpful but not systematic provides a great play aid.

Quote from: talysman;597404The 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.

   Thanks for the lecture. I know you think you have all the answers on how others should be running every aspect of their games but really I don't care.  Thanks anyway.
 

Quote from: vytzka;597409My, aren't you a sensitive one.

I'm not sensitive but I don't like being talked down to though.  Who likes that am I right?  Talysman's first post directed at me obviously had a disrespecting tone to it and I responded to it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

QuoteIt's pretty simple. If you're unwilling to compromise with the player and pick up some of their workload, and you think they're being disruptive otherwise, then it might be a good idea to get rid of them altogether.

Just ask yourself "is the continued presence of this player worth the extra work rolling/explaining to them all the time". If not, well, too bad. If it is worth it, then stop complaining.

What makes you think the problem wasn't rectified and why are you accusing me of complaining?

Just a guess? I mean, according to pop psychology men are hardwired to provide solutions to problems they hear about (adequate or otherwise). So that's what I do!

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

That level of knowledge seems ok. The player in my Pathfinder group who cannot distinguish a d8 from a d6(!) or remember to roll d20s for checks, can be annoying though. He keeps trying to add his to-hit bonus to damage, if he can locate either on his character sheet, which he generally can't.

Quote from: S'mon;597541That level of knowledge seems ok. The player in my Pathfinder group who cannot distinguish a d8 from a d6(!) or remember to roll d20s for checks, can be annoying though. He keeps trying to add his to-hit bonus to damage, if he can locate either on his character sheet, which he generally can't.

 It does get annoying when a player can't remeber to roll a d20.

fifty times in a row.

Quote from: Benoist;596883I'm just going to add that players like this, who don't bother about the rules and think more in the game world's terms, should be actually welcome by role playing games, because I don't think they are that uncommon. It matters in particular if we are talking about people interested in the idea of role playing games trying them out for the first few times, and not really wanting to get bogged down in the minutia of the rules.

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 agree with both of these. I'm ok with people who don't care about rules and think in the game world's terms, and even prefer them, but I think they do need to at least understand the procedural parts of the system that impact them.

Someone who has to be walked through each round of combat as if it's their first every single time for months on end starts to get tedious. They don't need to acquire rules mastery, but understanding you roll THIS die and add THAT score when doing THIS action you do about 20 times a session is something you should get down pat at some point.

Quote from: Bill;597612It does get annoying when a player can't remeber to roll a d20.

fifty times in a row.

It's even worse in Savage Worlds, since your ability or skill score is written as a die type.

"I have Fighting d6, what do I roll for that?"
"Uh... a d6?"
"Oh. Ok"
Over and over and over again

Quote from: Doctor Jest;597616It's even worse in Savage Worlds, since your ability or skill score is written as a die type.

"I have Fighting d6, what do I roll for that?"
"Uh... a d6?"
"Oh. Ok"
Over and over and over again

Replace lobotomized players with actual players. Repeat.

Results should improve.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;597627Replace lobotomized players with actual players. Repeat.

Results should improve.

You'd think that this sort of symptomatic behavior would be evident in other aspects of that person, so you could identify it in advance. But it just seems they have a big blind spot for rules to the point I have to wonder if there isn't some part of it that's intentional.

What I don't understand about this thread is why it even exists.

It seems as if when someone brings up a RAW thread on this board it's demonized for "not understanding how the game is set up / played".  Like it's somehow a crime to hold the books up to be technical manuals meant to be referenced during a game and not just put on the table for the "feeling" created by the game??

On the other hand, there's bitching about the players not knowing the rules.

You can't have both.  Either it's freeform and they know it so they don't give a shit, or it's rules oriented and they know it so they learn the game.

If you ever say "the rules don't matter" don't fucking expect your players to give a shit about them.  Let alone anything you say about them when using them in an argument.  

Why should they learn them if they are not enforced, bent or broken every time they are referenced?

Quote from: Blackhand;597680What I don't understand about this thread is why it even exists.

*snip*

Why should they learn them if they are not enforced, bent or broken every time they are referenced?

Rules are an excellent baseline to start with.