Quote from: Anon Adderlan;888753And if players don't have access to the rules, then they must rely on playing to the assumptions and priorities of the GM, which means the game will favor players who understand what those are.

Just like in real life. Knowledge of the Book of Nature is won through experiment.

Quote from: Madprofessor;888780I don't think it does, but perhaps that you think it does is my fault for not going into greater detail.

The players that I am referring to (in a particular group) prefer 400 page rule books and lots of splat books because they are more comfortable picking a character idea from given concepts than they are creating  a character concept from whole cloth.  it is not an issue of rules vs campaign so much as a perception and comfort with provided options.

But the players I was referring to like 400+ pages rulebooks because they want to learn the rules, how rules interact, how the system works, and then build the best possible character for the concept they have in mind.
You can easily prove those people exist, no need to take me on my word. Just open a CharOp forum for 3e:D!

Quote from: Phillip;888819Generation gap, maybe?

In the 1970s and early 1980s, it was SOP in my experience for one person to get a new game, then be GM simply because he/she was the only one who had the book. The rest of us learned what we needed to know about our roles in the Arizona Territory, Starship Warden, or whatever.

Of course, the manuals -- including "stuff" (monsters, gadgets, etc.) as well as rules per se -- typically ranged from 32 to 128 pages.

It's never been the SOP around here, and I'm in RPGs almost since they appeared in Bulgaria.
It was SOP in some groups, but would have been unacceptable in others;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;888512If you're a Game Master, and you're telling me as a player I have to pick up the rules and read them before we play, that's pretty much the absolute textbook definition of Epic GM Fail.

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:  

Jesus Christ, if there's a prize for most whacked out comment of the week, you've won it.  

Not that you're alone, because the RPG field takes second place to none for its witches brew of massive rules bloat and hostility towards knowing what those rules say, but still.

We're a community not merely preoccupied with rules, we're obsessed with them. What system? My system is better than yours! I like crunchy/I like rules-light! Why won't anyone play the system I like? What system goes best with this setting? Why is everyone playing the edition I hate? How can I make the system do better what I want it to do? Ten times as many threads as discuss philosophy discuss mechanics.

You are not -- however vividly I describe it or act it out to you -- just going to let me run the Big Bad through, pilot the spaceship through the asteroid belt, decipher that odd spell in Aramaic or disarm the counterweight trap just because I tell you I do it. You're going to apply the rules written to adjudicate such things. And if I tell you I don't have to bother learning them, and further go on to impose the burden on you and the other players to lead me by the nose, I'm not only saying that my time is more valuable than yours, but that it's okay to dump my share of the load on you, unasked.  

If you're alright with that, you are. Fair enough. I'm not. Plainly, neither are many other people.  

My version of the "light" rules of the system I play runs to 38 pages, including the intro and the TOC.  If a player is either too lazy, too snotty or too illiterate to read them before joining my campaign, he's a poor fit for it. I will be dipped in shit before I waste my time and that of my other players in holding up play, time and time again, while things are explained and re-explained and re-explained to rejectionists pushing the bounds of Epic Player Fail.  

I'd rather spend that time playing the damn game.  The time I waste talking you through options for the umpteenth effing time, I could be spinning out the next encounter.  The time I waste in your argument over why can't you do this or that, we could be RPing with a key NPC.  There's too much I want to do of a run Saturday than cater to the militantly lazy.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;888810Whatever the fuck it is you are smoking, you need to share.

I can't even comprehend this shit. It's insane.

You honestly expect the DM - who is already juggling handling NPCs, every aspect of the world that isn't an NPC, all the story shit going on, reigning in side-talk at the table - to also have all the fucking rules memorized and understand exactly how your special snowflake interacts with them, and be able to handle this information at your fucking whim?

That is quite possibly one of the most fucking self-centered things I have ever read. The only time this would be vaguely acceptable behavior would be in the context of a new player, and even then I'd expect them to do at least some fucking reading.

The most pathetic thing about you is, you can't even read.  I AM the GM you useless shitbag, I do all that effortlessly.

Quote from: Ravenswing;888829:rant:Ranty McRantish:rant:

Dude.
Context.  
The posts were discussing RAW, intent of the designer and the Cult of RAW thereof, specifically with regards to learning a new game.

For over 30 years now, I've never told a new player they need to buy the book and read it before they show up.  To me that is batshit insane.  The last thing a new player needs is access to the rules.

• If they are new to roleplaying, you may as well crack them one over the head with the rulebook, it will be about as much incentive for them to come back.
• If they are not new to roleplaying, then they already know, generally speaking, how a game kind of works, so the most important thing is how things are going to work in actual play, at your table, and reading a book isn't going to do that whether it's 40 pages or 400 pages.  Playing is.
  

There's a whole lot of communcation that is going to occur before the game, but that communication is going to be between GM and Player - through actual discussion and character generation, not Designer and Player - by having players read the rules out of context of the setting and campaign.

What I'm talking about has nothing to with a dumbass lazy player, who 8 sessions later can't be arsed to know what his spells or abilities actually do as some are saying.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with a jackass GM who never tells the players the rules and expects them to learn his fickle whims like he's Henry VIII as others are saying.

Let me break it down so we can limit the future bloodcries...

• When learning a new game, the rules as expressed in the book, are useless for a player.  Reading the rules is like learning how to shoot before you go into the Marine Corps.  They have to spend more time with you to unlearn the incorrect way to shoot.
• Designers these days are way too full of themselves, and fill the rulebooks with too many assumptions as if they didn't know that not a single person on earth, ever, is going to run those rules 100%, not even them.
• When you come to a table having already read the rules, you come with expectations and assumptions - many of which are going to be incorrect.
• Starting off at the table, by talking to the GM, making your character, finding out how things work at that table, you learn how things work in practical application, not in theory.
• Again, the rules are nothing more than a theoretical model of how things can be done.  The campaign at the table is the practical application of how they will be done.  

Should players have rulebooks? Of course.  But they're of much more use after a couple sessions of play, not memorized beforehand.  
The person who never reads the rules and holds up game sessions week after week after week - never met this person.
The person who shows up to the table having read all the rules and holds up the game week after week getting expectations reset as they have to realign to the table - isn't that the standard WotC and Pathfinder experience these days?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;888810You honestly expect the DM - who is already juggling handling NPCs, every aspect of the world that isn't an NPC, all the story shit going on, reigning in side-talk at the table - to also have all the fucking rules memorized and understand exactly how your special snowflake interacts with them, and be able to handle this information at your fucking whim?

I've been doing that for 40 years or so -- since I started GMing in late 1975/early 1976. Of course, I don't use game systems with 400+ pages of rules and I avoid rules systems with exception-based design where there are hundreds of exceptions to the standard rules for just about anything any PC, NPC, or monster ever does. Nor do I use rules with huge tables of standard modifiers for every situation the game designer could think of. Or if I do use such rules, I ignore that unwanted (by me) level of detail.

QuoteThat is quite possibly one of the most fucking self-centered things I have ever read. The only time this would be vaguely acceptable behavior would be in the context of a new player, and even then I'd expect them to do at least some fucking reading.

I don't expect players to do any rules reading unless they wish to -- ever. I hope they will at least read the 2-3 handout on the setting, but if they don't it's not a huge failing. As for the ones that wish to read them, that's great -- provided they understand that at my table the rules are merely guidelines for the GM not a law book.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;888753Must be nice to not lose books to players who borrow them to make characters

I'm a total and complete Lifepath whore, the book won't help in making up characters.  

That's probably why I see no need for onboarding a detailed backstory.  By the time chargen is done, there will be dozens of setting hooks, all organically created and setting appropriate, with player input.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888512If you're a Game Master, and you're telling me as a player I have to pick up the rules and read them before we play, that's pretty much the absolute textbook definition of Epic GM Fail.

I completely agree with this!
Never ever have I demanded of my players to read the rules before they can play. Everybody in my gaming group is already busy enough with other things in their life. If they really want to know the rules beforehand, hey, be my guest. Go through them and I'll explain (if applicable) the house rules. If they're lucky I've got something on paper.
But (again) in my group people just take a seat, they wonna know the world and setting and we take off from there.
Sure, that doesn't mean they're not interested in the rules or will have comments on them, but I must say I've never encountered a problem with this approach. So, yeah, sometimes in the first couple of sessions rule questions are asked when they might arise (perhaps I forgot to explain something, didn't explain something too well, etc.), but that's no biggy.
Focus lies on roleplaying, not the rules as such...
I mean, after twenty+ years of DND, questions still pop up, even though I've had several other DND GMs at my table who were very familiar with the rules (ok, all the different versions have made things a bit murky sometimes, but hopefully you get my point).

YMMV may vary of course...

My group is 25+ years together, everyone knows what an RPG is, we're familiar with dozens of systems, so anything new isn't go to be a real challenge (except for the likes of Phoenix Command ) and the composition of the group hasn't changed that much over the years (so if I lend out a book I know where I can get it back! ).

Quote from: Vonn;888847I completely agree with this!

...

I mean, after twenty+ years of DND, questions still pop up, even though I've had several other DND GMs at my table who were very familiar with the rules (ok, all the different versions have made things a bit murky sometimes, but hopefully you get my point).

YMMV may vary of course...

My group is 25+ years together, everyone knows what an RPG is, we're familiar with dozens of systems, so anything new isn't go to be a real challenge (except for the likes of Phoenix Command ) and the composition of the group hasn't changed that much over the years (so if I lend out a book I know where I can get it back! ).

On the contrary, is seems you completely disagree, but it so happens that your group knows the rules so it is not really an issue. You make comments like "after twenty+ years of DND" and  "we're familiar with dozens of systems", so in a way your players have picked up the rules and read them before coming to play.

What happens with an entirely new system? CRKrueger's comment is very broad and rather insulting. Is he referring the players to a 400 page manual that must be read before game starts or a 4 page executive summary of the rules? What if the game is only 4 pages long to begin with?

Personally, I have handed out 4 to 8 page long summaries of the rules filled in with some brief examples and have found got acceptance from the players. It clarifies some concepts before game and lets us move to the interesting part quickly, and by that I mean playing. Now you and CRKrueger may disagree, but that's quite a long shot from calling me a textbook GM Fail when it's clearly beneficial to the group.

Quote from: Saurondor;888858On the contrary, is seems you completely disagree, but it so happens that your group knows the rules so it is not really an issue. You make comments like "after twenty+ years of DND" and  "we're familiar with dozens of systems", so in a way your players have picked up the rules and read them before coming to play.

What happens with an entirely new system? CRKrueger's comment is very broad and rather insulting. Is he referring the players to a 400 page manual that must be read before game starts or a 4 page executive summary of the rules? What if the game is only 4 pages long to begin with?

Personally, I have handed out 4 to 8 page long summaries of the rules filled in with some brief examples and have found got acceptance from the players. It clarifies some concepts before game and lets us move to the interesting part quickly, and by that I mean playing. Now you and CRKrueger may disagree, but that's quite a long shot from calling me a textbook GM Fail when it's clearly beneficial to the group.

Because I referred to YMMV, I pointed out my context, which is clearly different from a lot of other GMs.

We use new systems continuously (well, every 2 years or so, the average campaign span) and like I said it has never proven to be a problem to just play, instead of telling my players to read the rules before we can play.

Hey, 4-8 pages sounds like a great idea if that works for your group and yourself. Personally, I don't see why I put that effort into it.
And if you as the GM stated to me as a player that I MUST read the rules before I can take part in your group...well, than IMO something's off. Personally, I don't think 4-8 pages is a problem. But 100 pages, yeah...400+ pages, certainly.
I probably have other expectations from my players...

Quote from: AsenRG;888826But the players I was referring to like 400+ pages rulebooks because they want to learn the rules, how rules interact, how the system works, and then build the best possible character for the concept they have in mind.
You can easily prove those people exist, no need to take me on my word. Just open a CharOp forum for 3e:D!

Such people certainly exist. Fortunately, they avoid my games like the plague. Just hearing about my very low tolerance for min-maxing and rules lawyering convinces all but the most stubborn that they do not want to even try playing in my campaign. And that's before they hear that I run "rules are just guidelines for the GM" and don't use rules-heavy gamesystems to start with.

I prefer to play systems where the necessary mechanics for play can be included on the character sheet. Where more mechanics are needed I will write up a brief summary of each character's special rules and hand it to the players.

If you are playing a non-spellcaster I don't see any reason why you should be expected to knw the spellcasting rules before play begins. For spellcasters the general spellcasting rules and the special rules for the spells the character can cast are sufficient.

As for background, I tend to give a brief oral summary and fill in the rest during play.

Quote from: DavetheLost;888814Please don't come to my neck of the woods then. It is a rare joy when I get a player who is willing to crack the covers of a rulebook at all.

I just assume that I will be the one learning, teaching and administrating the rules (all of the rules) as well as moving the story forward, playing NPCs, etc.

This is one reason I don't play 400 page rule book games anymore. I need games with short settings and especially short rules since I am going to be keeping it all in my head for the duration of the campaign.  The less there is written on the page the easier it is for me to wing it and create a spontaneous living breathing world.

Pretty much, for the GM it is called rules mastery, and for the players, they'll want to see the game in action before getting invested in it or the rules.

Rules light is good because it isn't like I don't have a thousand other rules memorized, so if some other rule is needed, I can make it up on the spot and run it by the players for consensus.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888832

• Designers these days are way too full of themselves, and fill the rulebooks with too many assumptions as if they didn't know that not a single person on earth, ever, is going to run those rules 100%, not even them.

I must point out that I have run rules 100% by the RAW. Fates Worse than Death, Grunt RPG, GURPS4e, Pendragon, Flashing Blades, Blue Planet 2, Mongoose Traveller 1, Runequest 6, Unknown Armies, Witchcraft, Talislanta, Honor+Intrigue, Sorcerer, Legends of the Wulin, Monsterhearts and ORE (Reign and A Dirty World) all work by the book, IME.
Savage Worlds used to before they removed the Shaken mechanic, haven't tried it since. Exalted 3 works with heroic mortals at least, and Exalted 2 used to work by the book, but did so in way that sucked:D. Amber definitely works by the book, too.
I don't give a fuck whether the designer runs the game according to a magic 8-ball, throws I Ching sticks and interprets the results, applies a modified variant of his or her own system, or applies the RAW. All I care is whether it works for me (and those that didn't, simply didn't end up here).

Then again, I agree with you that what matters is how the rules work at this table. Luckily, on most tables where I play, I'm the authority on how the rules work:). People just ask me how to interpret stuff, and we continue.
It saves on so much work:p!

But where I see the rules being used per RAW most often is in Pathfinder and d20/3.5 games. Seriously, there was a thread on Myth-Weavers about whether the GM should be able to restrict the available classes and races:p.
Don't start googling it, I already told them the same thing;)!

Quote from: CRKrueger;888842I'm a total and complete Lifepath whore, the book won't help in making up characters.  

It sucks mightily when a book comes without lifepaths, doesn't it;)? I definitely know the feeling! If I could, I'd be running everything with lifepaths as well.

Quote from: AsenRG;888887I must point out that I have run rules 100% by the RAW. Fates Worse than Death, Grunt RPG, GURPS4e, Pendragon, Flashing Blades, Blue Planet 2, Mongoose Traveller 1, Runequest 6, Unknown Armies, Witchcraft, Talislanta, Honor+Intrigue, Sorcerer, Legends of the Wulin, Monsterhearts and ORE (Reign and A Dirty World) all work by the book, IME.
Savage Worlds used to before they removed the Shaken mechanic, haven't tried it since. Exalted 3 works with heroic mortals at least, and Exalted 2 used to work by the book, but did so in way that sucked:D. Amber definitely works by the book, too.

I try not to think about game rules while playing. Nothing makes a game session suck more than when a GM has a rulebook in his face.